Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees Legislative & Public Affairs Committee Meeting

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES LEGISLATIVE & PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING

Educational Services Center Board Room – First Floor 770 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Wednesday, April 18, 2018 3:00 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.

Committee Members Mike Fong, Chair Andra Hoffman, Vice Chair Gabriel Buelna, Member Scott J. Svonkin, Board Alternate Maria Luisa Veloz, Staff Liaison Marvin Martinez, College President Liaison

Agenda (Items may be taken out of order)

I. ROLL CALL

II. PUBLIC SPEAKERS*

III. NEW BUSINESS

A. Federal Update Report -Leslie Pollner, Holland & Knight LLP

B. State Legislative Update Report 1. Higher Education Policy Update - Dale Shimasaki, Strategic Education Services

2. Community College CEO New Funding Formula Final Report - Lizette Navarette, Vice President Community College League of California

3. State Budget Update Report - Patrick McCullum, The McCullum Group

4. Legislative Priorities for Legislative Caucuses and Key 2018 Bills - Dale Shimasaki, Strategic Education Services

IV. OLD BUSINESS

V. DISCUSSION

VI. ADJOURNMENT

Order of Business April 18, 2018 Page 2 of 2

*Members of the public are allotted three minutes time to address the agenda issues.

If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternate formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. The agenda shall include information regarding how, for whom, and when a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services may be made by a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in the public meeting. To make such a request, please contact the Executive Secretary to the Board of Trustees at 213/891-2044 no later than 12 p.m. (noon) on the Tuesday prior to the Committee meeting.

800 17th Street, NW, Suite 1100 | Washington, DC 20006 | T 202.955.3000 | F 202.955.5564 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com

Memorandum

Date: April 12, 2018

To: LACCD Legislative & Public Affairs Committee

From: Holland & Knight LLP

Re: Federal Policy Update

This memo provides a brief overview of key issues impacting the Los Angeles Community College District, including: • FY 2018 Omnibus • Census Update • DACA Update • Public Benefit Regulation • Higher Education Legislation

Congress Passes Massive Omnibus Package; President Trump Signs into Law

On March 23, Congress passed a $1.3 trillion FY 2018 omnibus spending bill, narrowly avoiding another government shutdown. The measure boosts funding for defense and domestic programs, and is consistent with the two-year budget caps deal reached earlier in February, which allowed for a $80 billion increase in defense spending, and a $63 billion increase for nondefense programs.

The bill will fund the government through September, and garnered bipartisan support – it passed 256-17 in the House and 65-32 in the Senate. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) emphasized that the bill includes much of the President’s priorities, including beginning construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, programs to combat opioids, investment in infrastructure, and funding for school safety. Several Democratic priorities were also acknowledged in the $63 billion increase in domestic spending, such as funding for critical housing programs and infrastructure grant programs. However, the package does not include a resolution on DACA, despite last minute negotiations, which were ultimately unsuccessful and led many Democrats to oppose the bill. Both Senators Feinstein and Harris voted against the measure.

Below is an overview of education and workforce funding included in the FY 18 package.

Department of Education The U.S. Department of Education received a $3.9 billion increase in the FY 18 Omnibus funding bill. The department will be funded at $70.9 billion in fiscal 2018 — a 6 percent increase over fiscal 2017.

• Increases the maximum Pell Grant award by $175 allowing for a $6,095 maximum award;

• Provides a $140 million increase for Federal Work-Study, bringing the total to $1.1 billion;

• Gives a $840 million for Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants (SEOG), a $108 million increase;

• Provides $1.01 billion for TRIO Programs, an increase of $60 million;

• Gear-up received a $10 million increase for a total of $305 million;

• HBCU’s and other Minority-serving institution received a combined $106 million increase for grant programs.

• Minority-Serving Institutions: The Title III and Title V programs receive across-the- board increases of 14.3 percent, which represents more than $82 million in new funding.

In Elementary and Secondary Education the deal includes $1.1 billion — a $700 million boost — for the Student Support and Academic Enrichment grants, which can be used for school counseling and mental health services, technology investments and STEM education. This funding level reflects the authorized amount in the 2015 Every Students Succeeds Act, the legislation that reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Funding for other key Elementary and Secondary Education programs include:

• A $300 million increase for Title I Grants to school districts for a total of $15.8 billion;

• $275 million increase for IDEA/Special Education State grants for a total of $13.1 billion;

• $75 million increase for Career and Technical Education State Grants for a total of $1.2 billion;

• $86 million increase for Impact Aid for a total of $1.4 billion including a 4.5 billion increase for federal properties;

• After-school programs would get a $20 million increase, for total funding of $1.2 billion;

• $2.1 billion in grants for teachers' professional development and class-size reduction efforts;

#56476689_v1 April 12, 2018 Page 3

• $25 million for school climate grants to combat school violence.

Department of Labor The bill provides $12.2 billion to fund Department of Labor programs. The FY18 omnibus bill provides $12.2 billion for the Department of Labor (DOL), a $129 million increase from the FY17 level. This includes:

• $145 million for Apprenticeship programs, an increase of $50 million from the FY 17 level of $95 million;

• $1.7 billion for Job Corps, a $14.5 million increase above FY17;

• $89.5 billion for Youth Build, a $5 million increase over FY 17.

• Increased state workforce formula grants under Title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) by a combined $80 million, including a $30 million increase to the WIOA Adult program (from $816 million to $846 million); a $30 million increase to WIOA Youth programs (from $873 million to $903 million); and a $20 million increase to the WIOA Dislocated Worker state grants (from $1.02 billion to $1.04 billion).

National Science Foundation NSF receives $7.77 billion, $295 million above the FY 2017 level and $1.1 billion above the president’s request to foster innovation and research in advanced manufacturing; STEM education; and cybersecurity.

Department of Health and Human Services The Department of Health and Human Services through the Administration for Children and Families received funding for the following early education programs:

• Preschool Development Grants was level funded at $250 million;

• Head Start received $9.9 billion in funding.

HHS also received an additional $306 million for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency (SAMSHA) for a total of $1.5 billion for mental health services and programs. A significant amount of funds will be allocated to address juvenile mental health issues.

Department of Justice Following the school shooting tragedy in Parkland, Florida last month, Congress provided a significant amount of funding for school safety programs through the Departments of Justice, Education and Health and Human Services. Specifically Justice received funding for:

• $75 million for the Safe Schools grant, a program that has not received funding since 2009;

#56476689_v1 April 12, 2018 Page 4 • $94 million for youth mentoring;

• $20 million to reduce gang and gun violence;

• $4 million for youth gang prevention.

National Endowment for the Arts/National Endowment for the Humanities The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities each received a $3 million increase, while the president’s budget had called for both to be eliminated.

Republicans Look to Rollback Omnibus Spending

President Trump and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy reportedly are in talks to rollback spending increases in the recently-passed Omnibus bill by using an obscure provision in the budget law. During the recent Congressional spring recess Republicans received a lot of pushback in their districts about the $1.3 trillion omnibus bill, which significantly increased the federal budget deficit (in addition to the massive tax package that Congress recently passed).

Democrats, who supported the omnibus in exchange for increased funding of priority domestic programs, are annoyed. “It would completely poison the well to the idea that there can be responsible bipartisan compromise,” said Matthew Dennis, a spokesman for Rep. Nita Lowey (N.Y.), the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. The Republicans, Dennis added, are trying “to renege on elements that were critical to passage of the omnibus.”

Ninety conservatives House Republicans voted against the omnibus last month to protest the large spending increases for domestic program. “They’re upset. They’re saying, ‘What are you guys doing up there?’ ” Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, said of his constituents. “If the Republicans stand for anything, it’s fiscal responsibility.”

To appease House the conservatives, Trump and McCarthy are reportedly in talks to utilize the Congressional Budget and Impound Control Act, which allows the administration to propose a revocation of certain funds. Congress would then have 45 days to either consider the proposed rescissions or ignore them.

It should be noted that even if the House passes a measure to rescind portions of the omnibus, it would be difficult—if not impossible—for the measure to pass the Senate.

Census 2020

Late last month, the U.S. Commerce Department announced that it will include a question about citizenship to the 2020 census questionnaire. In an eight-page memo Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the Justice Department has requested that the census ask who is a citizen in order to help determine possible violations of the Voting Rights Act. The Department also pointed out that previous Census surveys before 1950 consistently asked citizenship questions.

#56476689_v1 April 12, 2018 Page 5 The Census count is used to redraw congressional districts and determine federal formula funding. It also forms the basis of countless government and academic studies that drive public policy decisions and legislation in DC. Observers are deeply concerned that the citizenship will have a “chilling” effect on responses—and will lead to a major undercount, particularly in urban areas with significant immigrant populations. Arguing that the citizenship question is unconstitutional, California AG Xavier Becerra announced that California would sue the Trump Administration to prevent the question from being included. New York has also filed a multi- state lawsuit.

The House Oversight Committee has announced it will hold a hearing on May 8th on Census 2020 and plans to focus specifically on the citizenship question.

It should be noted that the FY 18 Omnibus included more than $2.8 billion for Census in fiscal year 2018, with over $2.5 billion going to "periodic programs," which includes the decennial census. The boost represents more than a $1.3 billion increase over enacted fiscal year 2017 levels -- and more than $1 billion over the administration's adjusted fiscal year 2018 budget request.

DACA Remains Fluid

The effort to find a DACA fix remains fluid and uncertain. On April 1st, Easter Sunday, President Trump tweeted that the DACA deal is dead. Specifically, the President’s tweet read, “Border Patrol Agents are not allowed to properly do their job at the Border because of ridiculous liberal (Democrat) laws like Catch & Release. Getting more dangerous. “Caravans” coming. Republicans must go to Nuclear Option to pass tough laws NOW. NO MORE DACA DEAL!”

The President’s declaration caught advocates by surprise as Trump had continued to support a DACA deal, though with concessions such as border wall funding. Two weeks earlier, President Trump threatened to veto the recently-passed FY 2018 Omnibus because it did not include a DACA solution and border wall funding.

Meanwhile, DACA remains in the courts where the 9th Circuit in California is expected to rule this summer. The Supreme court could accept the case as early as October, pushing the final ruling into 2019.

Further complicating matters, on Sunday, April 8th, GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said he expects Congress and the White House to reach an immigration deal by spring or early summer. “There’s a deal to take care of them and get the border wall we desperately need, plus interior enforcement to make us safer,” the South Carolina Republican said on ABC’s “This Week.” “That deal can be done, and I'll make a prediction on this show that there’ll be another effort to marry up border security and DACA.” Graham, who has been the lead GOP negotiator on DACA in the Senate, emphasized the critical need to reach a DACA deal because the courts may rule that President Trump has the authority to end DACA. “It may fail, but I

#56476689_v1 April 12, 2018 Page 6 believe we owe it to the American people to try again,” the senator said. “And I think the president is open-minded to trying again.”

Trump Administration Working on Proposal to Penalize Immigrants Using Public Benefits

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security plans to propose regulations that change longstanding policy about the meaning and application of the “public charge” provisions of immigration law. Under the current definition, a public charge is a person who is primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. A person deemed likely to become a public charge can be denied admission to the U.S. or the ability to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR). According to leaked drafts, the new proposal would greatly expand the benefits that could be considered in determining whether a person is likely to become a public charge. Immigrants’ use of programs related to their health and wellbeing — or that of their family members, including U.S. citizen children — could be weighed in deciding whether to grant lawful permanent residence (a green card). The proposed rule would apply similar criteria to discretionary decisions for people seeking to extend or change their temporary nonimmigrant status in the U.S.

Current rules only apply to immigrants who receive cash payments from the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. DHS’s proposed rule would broaden the definition of benefits to include the earned income tax credit, Section 8, ACA health insurance subsidies, food stamps and other non-cash benefits. Exempt would be K-12 education, Head Start and benefits derived from service in the U.S. military.

This proposal has immigration and anti-poverty advocates concerned for immigrant families, who may forgo accessing federal work support benefits out of fear of jeopardizing their U.S. residency. The proposal further require immigrants to post cash bonds if they are more likely to one day need or accept benefits. The minimum amount of the bond would be $10,000.

The proposal, not yet finalized, will be published in the Federal Register and the public will be invited to comment. Action is expected in the next few weeks.

Senator Schatz Introduces College for All Act Legislation Provides Incentives to States to Provide Debt-free College; Includes Provision to Make DACA Students Pell Eligible

U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai) has introduced S. 2597, the Debt-Free College Act. The bill restores a path to affordable college by providing states incentives through matching grants to increase investments in public higher education and provide students with debt-free college.

The bill has 32 additional co-sponsors, including California Senator Kamala Harris. A companion bill was introduced in the House co-sponsored by Rep. Judy Chu.

The Debt-Free College Act establishes a state-federal partnership that provides a dollar-for- dollar federal match to state higher education appropriations in exchange for a commitment to help students pay for the full cost of attendance without having to take on debt.

#56476689_v1 April 12, 2018 Page 7 “College has become a dream that is weighed down with a giant price tag that an individual could only imagine taking on,” said Senator Harris. “Those who take that challenge face mountains of debt and are trapped in a devastating cycle of loans that will follow them for decades. We must take action and address this crisis before it’s too late, and this bill puts us on a path to doing so.”

Under the Partnership, states would receive a one-to-one federal match to their higher education appropriations in exchange for a commitment to help students pay for the full costs of attendance without having to take on debt. States that participate in the Partnership would commit to maintaining funding for public 2- and 4-year colleges and providing need-based grants to cover students’ cost of attendance that their families cannot afford, with the goal of advancing debt- free college for all in-state students within 5 years of joining the partnership.

Additionally, the bill enables the Partnership to:

• Allows participating states to allocate a portion of their federal grant (up to 10 percent) toward building capacity and improving educational quality, such as increasing class offerings, investing in student support services, and repairing campus infrastructure, all of which would benefit long-underfunded community colleges in particular; • The Partnership prioritizes working-class students by requiring states to first cover any unmet need for Pell Grant recipients. Remaining funds can then be used to reduce or eliminate debt for other eligible students, as well as build capacity and increase educational quality; • The Partnership also extends federal Pell grant eligibility to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)-eligible students, or Dreamers, so that they can afford to attend college; • Ends the inequitable practice of asking about drug-related convictions on the free application for federal student aid (FAFSA), a practice that has caused confusion and potentially kept many students of color from receiving Pell Grants or other aid to which they were eligible; • Includes a grant program to reduce or eliminate the need to borrow for college for students enrolled in public and private non-profit Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions that serve at least 35 percent low-income students (defined by eligibility to receive Pell Grants)

The bill is co-sponsored by U.S. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and by U.S. Representatives Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Joe Crowley (D- N.Y.), Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-District of Columbia), Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), Gwen Moore (D-Wis), Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.), Rick Nolan (D-Minn.), Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).

#56476689_v1

OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR

April 18, 2018

To: Legislative and Public Affairs Committee Members

From: Maria Luisa Veloz Administrative Officer to the Chancellor

Subject: April 18 State Legislative and Public Affairs Update

We enter the fourth month of the 2018 session where the legislature is focused on policy committee hearings addressing legislative bill proposals. The Brown Administration is focused on defending its January budget proposals in budget hearings and is working on its May Revision to the budget. Specifically, their major initiatives in the community colleges include the online community college proposal and the new funding formula for community colleges. The legislature is reviewing these major initiatives and disposition of both issues is expected to occur during deliberations of the budget.

The budget remains solidly in the black for the current fiscal year. The Department of Finance’s March Finance Bulletin indicates revenues are $2.581 billion above their forecast when the budget was adopted in June 2017.

Upcoming deadlines for this session:

April 27: Last day for policy committees to hear and report to fiscal committees fiscal bills introduced in their house.

May 11: Last day for policy committees to hear and report to the floor non-fiscal bills introduced in their house

June 15: Budget bill must be passed by midnight.

BUDGET UPDATE – 2018-2019 Board of Governors System Budget Request Prepared by: MGI

The administration’s budget proposal this year includes some of the most dramatic proposed changes that community colleges have seen in years. The major components of the proposal include:

1. Development of a new community college funding formula 2. Creation of a completely online 115th community college 3. Implementation of AB 19 (Santiago) of 2017

Funding Formula CEO Group Recommendations Under the administration’s proposal, new community college funding would be allocated based roughly on 50% enrollment, 25% equity factor and 25% completion factor. After the release of the trailer bill language, the Department of Finance released initial funding simulations. The result was significant shifting of funding of certain districts to other districts. At the request of the State Chancellor, a group of CEOs met to develop principles to guide the development of a new funding formula. The principles they developed are:

1. Increase community college base funding prior to implementation of a new funding formula 2. Integrate the enrollment and academic progress of economically disadvantaged populations 3. Provide two years of program transition funding 4. Adequately define equity metrics 5. Enhance funding predictability with three-year average for base funding and assigning Summer FTE to the fiscal year in which instruction was held 6. Progressively phase out transition funding to full implementation in 2025 7. Recognize regional and local factors 8. Establish a funding formula oversight council to conduct annual analyses and make recommendations for adjustment

Categorical Programs The Chancellor’s Office is also looking at categorical consolidation. The most likely categorical programs to be put under one umbrella are the Student Success and Support Program, Student Equity and the Basic Skills Initiative. There are discussions of including other categorical programs, but those programs either have a lot of support in the Legislature or their construct would make them difficult to integrate. There is some discussion about including the performance funding out of the categorical program as opposed to the base where a district’s fixed costs come from.

Where is the Legislature? At the Subcommittee level, members are skeptical of the plan and a number of members and staff are outright opposed to including anything in a formula that creates a performance-based funding model. Both Chairs of the Assembly Budget Subcommittee #2 and the Senate Budget Subcommittee #1 would reject the Governor’s proposal were they to vote now. Additionally, Assemblyman Medina, Chair of the Assembly Higher Education Committee and a member of the Budget Subcommittee on Education has introduced AB 2767 which would have the LAO conduct a report on changing the funding formula.

Legislative staff are aware that the current trailer bill language does not work and that it needs significant changes before it can be implemented. They are looking at the two-year transition funding as a way to get to a formula that works. There is a sense that we need a new formula for community colleges, but what that ultimately looks like is the critical question.

Other Issues The large district coalition has been in meetings and has developed some principles that Legislators are examining. The other issues are including some amount of growth Two other issues are emerging from the budget discussions. One, is the movement of noncredit CDCP course funding from positive attendance to census date. The other is an examination of the current growth formula. The Legislature could consider equalizing noncredit through the census

2 date as the current apportionment model provides noncredit courses with less funding than credit courses. Additionally, the current growth model will likely be examined should the Legislature choose to provide two years of transition funding while a new funding formula is finalized. MGI clients have indicated that through the transition, there ought to be some growth allocated so that districts that are growing can fund all the students that they serve. This is particularly important because of the transition funding that will leave less growth “on the table.”

Online Education In January the administration released a proposal to create an entirely online 115th California Community College. The college would be run by the Board of Governors initially and would focus on those in the workforce that have “some education.” The college would not go through the current Online Education Initiative but would stand alone.

Where is the Legislature? If the vote were taken today in the Subcommittees, the online college would not move out of the Subcommittee level. Assemblyman McCarty, Senator Portantino and staff have indicated that the proposal still needs work in order to get their support. That said, it appears that this is the Governor’s top issue for community colleges and one of his top issues in the budget overall.

The Governor is “working” this issue and the State Chancellor’s Office is very supportive. There is strong opposition from faculty groups on the proposal. The Building Trades are also opposed to parts of the online college proposal. This is an issue that could move to the “Big Three” budget negotiations where groups like CTA and CFT will have to stay strong if there is going to be a counter proposal that is not a 115th college. If the ultimate goal is to go through the current infrastructure rather than create a new college, then there could be an opportunity to offer greater online offerings for local districts.

Student Financial Aid Century Foundation Report The Century Foundation recently released a report commissioned by the Student Aid Commission. The report goal was to provide recommendations to CSAC for delivering a streamlined and more equitable financial aid model. The report recommends eventually moving to a grant program that provides for total cost of attendance, rather than the current grant structure.

Staff developed a roadmap that they will present to the Commission. The roadmap will lay out a plan for implementation of the report over three steps, starting in the current year and moving through 2019-20. The plan lays out the following proposals:

1. Phase One: 2018-19 Budget a. Increase the Cal Grant Access Award b. Increase CSAC outreach and early information c. Create an Innovation Fund for financial aid

2. Phase Two: 2018 or 2019 Legislative Year a. Cal Grant Consolidation

3. Phase Three: 2019-20 Legislative Session and Budget Years a. Substantial overhaul of the financial aid system to move to an Expected Family Contribution (EFC)

This could be a year where phase one has the opportunity to be implemented with the additional funding that the LAO is projecting will be available at the May Revise. They are projecting that most of this funding will be outside of Proposition 98 because the Maintenance Factor has been mostly paid off.

Financial Aid Consolidation The Administration has proposed consolidating two community college financial aid programs that largely serve the same population. One provides economic incentive to students that take at least 12 units and the other would focus on students taking 15 units. Under the Administration proposal students would earn additional financial aid if they are a Cal Grant recipient and take 12 to 15 units. The amount of financial aid would increase based on each additional unit a student takes over 12 units.

The LAO has recommended rejecting this proposal and instead consolidating community college financial aid (including Cal Grant B and C) and creating one grant program. They suggest the possibility that this could be funded inside Proposition 98. We would not want to see Cal Grants funded from Proposition 98 dollars.

Implementation of AB 19 The Administration’s budget proposal includes $46 million to fund the implementation of AB 19 (Santiago), the Community College Promise Program. It is estimated that this should provide sufficient funding to implement a College Promise Program, including AB 540 students, throughout the state. In order to have access to the funding, community college districts must implement a number of financial aid and student centered best practices. Those include:

1. Partnering with one or more local educational agencies to create an Early Commitment to College Program; 2. Partnering with one or more local educational agencies to support and improve high school student preparation for college and reduce postsecondary remediation through practices that may include, but shall not be limited to, small learning communities, concurrent enrollment; 3. Utilizing evidence-based assessment and placement practices at the community college that include multiple measures of student performance; 4. Participating in the California Community College Guided Pathways Grant Program; 5. Leverage the Board of Governors fee, ensuring students complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, Cal Grant application, or Dream Act application, and participate in a federal loan program.

The measure provides for the State Chancellor’s Office to develop the allocation model. They have indicated that they are developing a proposal that will allow all districts to waive fees for first-time, full-time students. If there is remaining funding, the Chancellor’s Office will develop a methodology for allocating that funding based on FTES and the number of students that are PELL eligible.

Where is the Legislature? Both of the subcommittees are supportive of this proposal and the Assembly Budget Subcommittee #2 on Education has already heard the issue. The Assembly Budget Subcommittee, Chaired by Assemblyman McCarty passed a similar proposal last year and Mr. McCarty was a joint author on AB 19.

May Revise The Administration will release an updated budget proposal in mid-May. Initial estimates are that the May Revise could present significant additional revenues. Initial estimates are that it could be as much as $3 billion in additional funding. Even though there is projected to be additional revenues, projections indicate that not much of that funding will be available for Proposition 98. As mentioned above, this could create an opportunity to grow Cal Grants with non-Proposition 98 resources. There could be a small amount of Proposition 98 revenues available which could be put toward a number of areas, including an increase in the base grant or to fund liabilities. Faculty would like some additional funding to go towards increasing full-time faculty.

Recommendation:

1. Continue to work with Legislature and administration to support the two-year transition funding and work to develop a funding formula that supports LACCD’s strategic goals for student success. 2. Work with the Legislature to develop an online plan that gives districts the opportunity to offer enhanced online opportunities. 3. Support full implementation of AB 19 (Santiago), the College Promise Program. 4. Support direction of Student Aid Commission report and roadmap to implementation of streamlined grant program.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE – Prepared by: SES

AB 2306 [Santiago] – Student Financial Aid: Cal Grant Program LACCD Position: Sponsored by LACCD Status: Do pass and re-refer to Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Summary: This measure would increase the Cal Grant eligibility requirement for a community college student, or former student who transfers to a four-year institution. The bill will allow students who are eligible to receive the Cal Grant award for the amount of six years of attendance instead of only four years.

Position: • District position is support. (Sponsored)

Update: • The measure passed the Assembly Committee on Higher Education on a 9-2 vote.

Support and Opposition: Alliance for Children's Rights California Student Aid Commission Community College League of California Faculty Association of California Community Colleges Foothill-De Anza Community College District Kern Community College District Los Rios Community College District North Orange Community College District Peralta Community College District San Diego Community College District 5

San Francisco Community College District San Jose-Evergreen Community College District South Orange County Community College District Yuba Community College District

Opposition: No opposition recorded.

Recommendation: Strongly Support

AB 2575 [Santiago] AS AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 05, 2018 – High School and Community College Dual Enrollment: College and Career Access Pathways Partnerships: Private Schools Status: Re-referred to Assembly Committee on Higher Education.

Summary: This measure would authorize the governing board of a community college district to enter into a College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP) partnership, or dual enrollment, with the governing body of a private school. This would also authorize partnerships with parochial schools as well.

Position: • The District position is support. (Sponsored)

Update: • This measure is to be heard in the Assembly Committee on Higher Education on April 17, 2018 at 1:30PM. • NOTE: There is similar legislation that will also be heard on the same date. AB 2891 [Holden] would authorize the governing body of a charter school to enter into a CCAP partnership agreement with the governing board of a community college district.

Support: Community College League of California

Opposition: None Reported

Recommendation: Strongly Support

AB 3101 [Carrillo] – Community Colleges LACCD Position: Sponsored by LACCD Status: Re-referred to Assembly Committee on Higher Education.

Summary: This measure requires the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges to revise CCCApply application process by no later than July 31, 2019 so only data that is required by the federal government, or that is otherwise necessary as determined by the Board, is collected during the process.

Position: • District position is support. (Sponsored)

Update: • This measure is to be heard in the Assembly Committee on Higher Education on April 17, 2018 at 1:30PM. 6

Support: City College of San Francisco Community College League of California Contra Costa College North Orange County Southwestern College San Diego Community College District West Hills College Coalinga Irvine Valley College College of the Canyons

Opposition: None Reported

Recommendation: Strongly Support

SB 1406 [Hill] - Public postsecondary education: community college districts: baccalaureate degree pilot program LACCD Position: Support Status: Amended in Senate Education Committee and re-referred to Senate Appropriations Committee.

Summary: The Board of Governors, in consultation with the California State University (CSU) and the University of California (UC) may establish baccalaureate degree pilot programs, at up to 15 community college districts, with one baccalaureate degree program each. This measure: • Extends the sunset date for the Board of Governors to establish baccalaureate degree pilot programs by two years to July 1, 2023. • Requires that a student participating in a baccalaureate pilot degree program to begin the program no later than the 2022.23 academic year. • Repeals an existing requirement that would require student participating in the baccalaureate pilot degree program to complete their degree by the end of the 2022-23 academic year.

Position: • District position is support.

Update: • This bill passed the Senate committee on Education on a 6-0 vote.

Support: California Community College Chancellor’s Office Community College League of California Feather River College Foothill-De Anza Community College District Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District Kern Community College District Los Rios Community College District MiraCosta Community College District North Orange Community College District Peralta Community College District San Diego Community College District San Diego Mesa College 7

San Francisco Community College District South Orange County Community College District Southwestern Community College District Yuba Community College District

Opposition No opposition recorded.

Recommendation: Support

AB 1935 [Irwin] – Community college: Tutoring LACCD Position: N/A Status: Re-referred to Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Summary: This measure would provide that supervised tutoring for basic skills for degree-applicable, and transfer-level courses, are eligible for state apportionment funding. The Board of Governors would be responsible for adopting the regulation by no later than July 31, 2019.

Position: • No position.

Update: • This bill passed the Assembly Committee on Higher Education on a 13-0 vote. • NOTE: SB 1009 [Wilk] is similar legislation that would also authorize state apportionment funding for tutoring students.

Support: AVID Center California Federation of Teachers Chief Student Services Officers Association Community College League of California Foothill-De Anza Community College District Kern Community College District Los Rios Community College District North Orange Community College District Peralta Community College District San Diego Community College District San Francisco Community College District South Orange County Community College District The Campaign for College Opportunity Youth Policy Institute Yuba Community College District

Opposition: No opposition is recorded.

Recommendation: Watch.

SB 1009 [Wilk] – Community Colleges: Tutoring LACCD Position: N/A Status: Amended in Senate Education Committee, re-referred to Senate Appropriations Committee.

Summary: This measure would provide that supervised tutoring for courses, and classes, in all subject areas regardless of being transfer-credit or not would be eligible for state apportionment funding. The measure would apply: • Whether the student has been referred by a faculty member to tutoring • Self-initiated tutoring.

Position: • No position.

Update: • This bill passed the Senate Education Committee on a 5-0 vote. • NOTE: AB 1935 [Irwin] is similar legislation that would also authorize state apportionment funding for tutoring students.

Support and Opposition: Coast Colleges College of the Canyons Foothill-De Anza Community College District Kern Community College District Los Rios Community College District Peralta Community College District San Diego Community College District San Francisco Community College District South Orange County Community College District West Hills Community College District Yuba Community College District

No opposition recorded.

Recommendation: Watch.

AB 1037 [Limon] - Postsecondary Education: Student Financial Aid: Cal Grant B Service Incentive Grant Program. LACCD Position: N/A Status: Referred to Senate Committee on Education.

Summary: This measure would establish the Cal Grant B Service Incentive Grant Program under the administration of the California Student Aid Commission. The Cal Grant B Service Incentive Program would be made available beginning the 2018–19 academic year. In order for student to be eligible, they would need to: • Be a recipient of a Cal Grant B award. • Be enrolled as a student at a campus of the University of California, the California State University, or the California Community Colleges, or at an independent institution of higher education. 9

• Perform a minimum of 300 hours of community service or volunteer work each academic year that the grant is provided.

Position • No position.

Update: • This bill passed the Assembly Floor on a vote of 52-23.

Support: California Charter Schools Association California Immigrant Policy Center California Student Aid Commission (Sponsor) The Education Trust-West

Opposition: No opposition recorded.

Recommendation: Watch.

AB 1858 [Calderon] - Student Financial Aid: Financial Aid Shopping Sheet LACCD Position: N/A Status: Referred to Assembly Appropriations suspense file.

Summary: This measure would add a provision to the Donahoe Higher Education Act requiring each campus, in a postsecondary institution, to use the U.S. Department of Education’s Financial Aid Shopping Sheet. The Financial Aid Shopping Sheet would be used to inform potential students of the financial aid award packages from the California Student Aid Commission.

Position: • No position.

Update: • This bill passed the Assembly Higher Education Committee on a 13-0 vote.

Support: The Institute for College Access & Success

Opposition: No opposition recorded.

Recommendation: Watch.

AB 2477 [Rubio] – Student Support Services: Dream Resource Liaisons LACCD Position: N/A (DACA Task Force Recommends Support) Status: From Assembly Higher Education Committee, re-refer to Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Summary: This measure would require the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California to designate a Dream Resource Liaison on each of their campuses to assist students with financial aid and academic planning. 10

Position: • No position.

Update: • AB 2477 passed the Assembly Committee on Higher Education on a 11-1 vote (R – Kiley, voting no). • NOTE: This is similar legislation to AB 1622 [Low] in 2017 which was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Support: Alianza American Academy of Pediatrics, California California Immigrant Policy Center California Student Aid Commission Central American Resource Center University of California

Opposition: No opposition recorded.

Recommendation: Support.

SB 1471 [Hernandez] – Cal Grant Program: Competitive Cal Grant A and B Awards LACCD Position: N/A Status: Scheduled to be heard in Senate Appropriations on April 16, 2018.

Summary: This measure would increase the number of Competitive Cal Grant awards authorized from 27,500 to 30,000.

Position: • No position.

Update: • This bill passed the Senate Education Committee on a 6-0 vote. The bill is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 16, 2018 at 10am.

Support and Opposition: Bay Area Council California Competes California EDGE Coalition California State Conference of the NAACP California Student Aid Commission Community College League of California EARN Foothill-De Anza Community College Districts John Burton Advocates for Youth Kern Community College Districts Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce Los Rios Community College Districts MALDEF North Orange County Community College District 11

Peralta Community College Districts Public Advocates San Diego Community College Districts San Francisco Community College Districts South Orange County Southern California College Access Network Student Senate for California Community Colleges The Campaign for College Opportunity The Education Trust-West The Institute for College Access and Success uAspire Young Invincibles Yuba Community College Districts

Opposition: No opposition recorded.

Recommendation: N/A

A ^'amK? !>1 Tt 01 CA1 01;-^1 VIA 1!( t: IV' AUTHENTICATED ; ^Al/ ELECTBQNIC LEGAL MATERIAL

Assembly Bill No. 19

CHAPTER 735

An act to add Article 3 (commencing with Section 76396) to Chapter 2 of Part 47 of Division 7 of Title 3 of the Education Code, relating to postsecondary education.

[Approved by Governor October 13, 2017, Filed with Secretary of State October 13.201 7.]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 19, Santiago. Community colleges: California College Promise. Existing law eitablishes the California Community Colleges, under the c^ administration of the Board of Governors of the California Communit> Colleges, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state.-Existing law authorizes the establishment of community college districts under the administration of community college governing boards, and authorizes these districts to provide instruction at community college campuses throughout the state. Existing law requires community college district governing boards to charge students an enrollment fee of $46 per unit per semester. Existing law requires the board of governors to waive this fee for students meeting prescribed requirements.

This bill would establish the California College Promise,c^ to be administered by the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, which shall distribute funding, upon appropriation by the Legisiature, to each community college meeting prescribed requirements to be used to, anwng other things, accomplish specified policy goals and w.ive fees for one academic year for first-time students who are enrolled in 12 or more semester units or the equivalent at the college and complete and submit either a Free Application for Federal Student Aid or a California Dream Act application. The people of she Stale ofCaltforma do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Article 3 (commencing with Section 76396) is added to Chapter 2 of Part 47 of Division 7 of Title 3 of the Education Code, to read: Article 3. California College Promise 76396. (a) The California College Promise is hereby established, to be administered by the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges.

89 Ch.735 2-

(b) (1) Upon appropriation by the Legislature, the chancellor shall distribute funding to community college districts to fund colleges that satisfy the requirements of this article. (2) (A) The chancelior shall establish a funding formula thai advances the goals outlined in Section 76396.1. (B) It is the intent of the Legislature that sufficient funding be allocated to each community college to waive all student fees pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 76396.3. (C) The funding formula established pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall, for funding appropriated for this article in excess of the funding detennined pursuant to subparagraph (B), include, but not be limited to, both of the following factors: (i) Number of full-time equivalent students at a community college. (ii) Number of students at a community college who satisfy the requirements to receive federal Pell Grants and the requirements in Section 68130.5. (c) For purposes of this article, "chancellor" means the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges. 76396.1. It is the intent of the Legislature that the California College Promise support the California Community Colleges in accomplishing all of the following goals: (a) Increasing the number and percentage of high school students who are prepared for and attend college directly from high school and increasing the percentage of high school graduates who are placed directly into transfer-leve] mathematics and English courses at a community college, (b) Increasing the percentage of students who earn associate degrees or career technical education certificates that prepare them for in-dein and jobs and increasing the percentage of students who report being employed in their field of study. (c) Increasing the percentage of students who successfully transfer from a community college to the California State University or the Universiry of California and increasing the percentage of students who graduate from college with a baccaiaureate degree. & c (d) Reducing and eliminating regional achievement gaps and achievement gaps for students from groups that are underrepresenfed at the California Community Colleges, including, but not limited to, underrepresented students, low-income students, students who are current or former foster youth, students \\ith disabilities, formerly incarcerated students; undocumented students, students meeting the requirements ofAssembh' Bill 540 of the 2001-2002 Regular Session of the Legislature, and students who are veterans. 76396.2. The requirements for participation in the California College Promise shall advance the goalsoutlined in Section 76396.1 and shall include all of the following: (a) Partnering with one or more local educational agencies to establish an Early Commitment to College Program that is consislent with the intent of Article 6.3 (commencing with Section 54710) of Chapter 9 of Part 29 of

K9 3 Ch. 735

Division 4 of Title 2 to provide K.-12 students and families assistance that includes, but is not limited to. learning about college opportunities, visiting campuses, taking and completing college preparatory courses, and applying for college and financial aid. (b) Partnering with one or more local educational agencies to support and'improve high school student preparation for college and reduce postsecondary remediation through practices that may include, but shall not be limited to, small learning communities, concurrent enrollment, and other evidence-based practices. (c) Utilizing evidence-based assessment and placement practices at the community college that include multiple measures of student performance. which shall include, among other measures, overall grade point averages, including grades in high school courses, and using evidence-based practices to improve outcomes for underprepared students. (d)' Participating in the California Community College Guided Pathways Grant Program established pursuant to Part 54.81 (commencing ^ith Section 88920) in order to clarify the academic path for students, help students enter a pathway, help students stay on an academic path, and ensure students are learning. (e) Maximizing student access to need-based financial aid by leveraging the Board of Governors fee waiver established under Section 76300, commonly known as the California Promise Grant, ensuring students complete' the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, Ca} Grant application, or Dream Act application, and participating m a federal loan program authorized under Title IV of the federal Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1070 et seq.). On or before January 1, 2018, a community college that does not participate in the federal loan program shall be provisionally eligible to participate in the California College Promise for one calendar year. The community college shall comply with the federal loan participation requirements in order to participate in the California College Promise on or after January 1,2019. 76396,3. (a) A community college that has been certified by the chancellor as meeting the requirements established under Section 76396.2 shall receive funding pursuant to Section 76396. (b) The community college may use funding appropriated pursuant to this article to waive some or all of the fees for first-time community college students who are enrolled at the college fu11 time, and complete and submit either a Free Application for Federal Student Aid or a California Dream Act application.-A fee waiver that a student receives pursuant to this subdivision shall only be for one academic year and fees shall only be waived for the summer term and each semester or quarter of that year in which the student maintains full-time status. A fee waiver provided pursuant to this subdivision shall not be available to a student who is charged a tuition fee pursuant to Section 76140. (c) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) "Full time" means 12 or more semester units or the equivalent.

89 Ch. 735 4-

(2) "One academic >ear" means the total of the summer term that immediately precedes the first semester or quarter of the fa1] term, and the two consecutive semesters or three quarters that immediately follow that summer lerm. Each semester or quarter is approximately the same length. (d) It is the intent of the Legislature that funding provided to support the California College Promise be used by the community college to advance the goals outlined in Section 76396.1. 76396.4. The board of governors may adopt regulations implementing this section.

w Attachment 1.1

Expanding Opportunity, Reducing Debt Reforming California Student Aid

APRIL 2018 — THE CENTURY FOUNDATION ROBERT SHIREMAN, SANDY BAUM, AND JENNIFER MISHORY

The Century Foundation | tcf.org 1 Attachment 1.1

Table of Contents

Summary 3 I. Broaden and Strengthen the Cal Grant 7 Step 1: Reconﬁgure the Cal Grant 7 Community College Students 8 Step 2: Implement Revised Measures of Expenses and Need 9 Revise the Expected Family Contribution 9 Standardize Cost of Attendance Estimates 10 Step 3: Expand the Cal Grant to Meet Need 10 II. Spur Innovation and Support Quality Choices 13 Not Just Bachelor’s Degrees! 13 Experiment with Innovative Approaches to Aid 13 Cal Grants at Private Colleges 13 III. Provide Better and Earlier Information 15 Create a User-Friendly Website 16

Make Estimates and Comparisons Easier 16 Improve and Compare Financial Aid Award Letters 19 Follow Up with Assistance and Advising 19 Encourage and Facilitate Saving for College 20 Appendixes 1. Fiscal Analysis 2. Communications Plan 3. Reforms in Other States and Countries 4. Stakeholder Perspectives 5. Analysis of Administrative Steps 6. History and Description of CSAC Aid Programs 7. Cost of Attendance

8. Legislative Specifications

The Century Foundation | tcf.org 2 Attachment 1.1

Summary

Under a contract with the California Student Aid Commission, The Century Foundation (TCF) has been tasked with “identifying options for improving afordability at California colleges and universities,” and suggesting ways to streamline and consolidate existing programs “to reduce current students’ cost of attendance, thus reducing or eliminating the need to rely on student loan debt.”

The project team interviewed more than ﬁfty stakeholders, including representatives from college access organizations, K-12 education, all of the higher education segments, several state agencies including the legislature, and others. Our recommendations focus on two major reforms: (1) consolidating the Cal Grant, while taking phased steps to improve overall afordability for low-income and middle- income students so that students have an option to take on little or no debt, and (2) scaling CSAC’s role in providing early, clear information to the public about student aid.

First, we recommend that California shift from a tuition- centric aid system to one that takes into consideration each student’s full college expenses when determining award

The Century Foundation | tcf.org 3 Attachment 1.1 levels. As part of that shift, we recommend updating the for more students to focus on their education measurement of “need” and the related expected family rather than on work, or risk their future by taking on contributions to be both more consistent across institutions problematic forms of debt. and more realistic, particularly for low- and middle-income families, given the cost of living in California. 3. Expand the Cal Grant to reduce or eliminate the need for loans. In Step 3, the state would In order to accomplish this, the legislature would need to continue to use reformed estimated cost of combine the major CSAC programs into one Cal Grant attendance and financial need calculations and entitlement that would be available without regard to provide adequate funding to reduce or eliminate students’ age, time out of high school, high school GPA, or students’ need for loans or excessive work. other factors that have severely complicated administration Depending on a students’ ability or desire to work, of, and communication about, Cal Grants. In addition, and Step 3 would provide most students with a pathway over a reasonable time frame, the legislature would increase to a debt-free degree. investment to better account for the total cost of attendance and to minimize both the debt and the in-school earnings Even as the legislature partners with CSAC to develop Californians need to complete college. The legislature these steps toward greater afordability, we propose would implement the new aid system in three steps: that they also launch a Fund for Innovation in College Afordability, so that CSAC can pilot and study approaches 1. Consolidate the Cal Grant and connect award to addressing students’ specific challenges and identify level to the Expected Family Contribution areas to gain efciencies that reduce the cost of attendance. (EFC). In Step 1, the legislature would broaden Cal For example, CSAC could explore initiatives such as Grant eligibility by combining all versions of the providing transportation vouchers, ofering free meals grant and eliminating current restrictions based on on campus (at least in the initial weeks) for new students age, time out of high school, and GPA. A student’s at community colleges, pre-purchasing textbooks for key amount of aid would take into consideration all courses, expanding work-study opportunities, arranging college expenses rather than just tuition and fees. for child care, or funding emergency aid program to cover Institutional aid would supplement the Cal Grant at unforeseen student needs. CSAC would expand any the University of California (UC) and the California successful financial aid interventions in Step 3. State University (CSU) system and at many private colleges. We project Step 1 would begin to reduce Second, we recommend that CSAC pursue a parallel reform students’ need for excessive work or loans at CSU track toward a modernized, technology-savvy approach campuses and community colleges. To ensure that to information and advising. We propose an upgrade to students continue to have quality choices, students CSAC’s web presence, building online capabilities and could use a Cal Grant at any private college that a partnership with the state Franchise Tax Board to allow can meet quality assurance standards. students to easily obtain personalized estimates of their aid eligibility and to compare aid award letters, and an increased 2. Using updated EFC and cost of attendance role in advising and college savings initiatives. CSAC might, methodology, set the Cal Grant award level for example, work with administrators of Scholarshare, the to meet affordability targets. In Step 2, CSAC California college savings plan, to develop communication would address the mismatch between the high strategies to encourage participation. This role will require cost of living in California and the federal EFC a significant focus on public communications and outreach, assumptions that low- and middle-income families building on CSAC’s existing outreach programs, to bring a face. Additional grant aid would make it possible sophisticated approach to reaching millions of students and families across the state. The Century Foundation | tcf.org 4 Attachment 1.1

Three Steps to Expanding Opportunity and Reducing Student Debt

STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STATUS Reconﬁgure Implement Revised Expand the Cal QUO the Cal Grant Measures of Grant to Meet Need Expenses and Need

Aid programs are Broaden and very complicated strengthen the Cal to explain and Grant administer

Aid amounts are Link aid to unmet Increase funding Provide funding to linked to tuition even need instead of to meet revised reduce or eliminate though expenses go tuition, providing afordability targets need for loans far beyond enough funding to meet an initial afordability target

The measure of Develop revised Reduce EFCs to family ability-to-pay measure to account account for higher (EFC) is frequently for high cost of living cost of living unrealistic in California

Aid available to Expand Cal Grant Adjust funding to community college availability account for revised Provide funding to students very limited EFC and cost reduce or eliminate measures need for loans

Estimates of non- Study non-tuition Implement new tuition expense expenses and standardized cost can be unreliable incentives, develop -of-attendance Broaden and Strengthen the Cal Grant and Strengthen Broaden and inconsistent, methodology for methodology across and can create estimates sectors counterproductive incentives

Perspectives Examine the role Implement revised regarding the role of work and loans, afordability targets Reﬁne approach of loans vary widely and develop revised as part of aid regarding the role of among colleges and afordability targets estimates and award loans aid professionals letters

The Century Foundation | tcf.org 5 Attachment 1.1

Nine Additional Steps to Remove Barriers to Access and Afordability

STATUS QUO RECOMMENDATION

Adults who are considering returning Provide adults with access to reliable, comparative expense- to school have little access to reliable and-aid information; Include certiﬁcate options in college information about aid price comparisons, and in advising

The reach of aid is frequently inadequate Test and evaluate innovative approaches to aid. Implement and/or too late to address barriers or large-scale pilots of outreach, advising, textbook provision, influence plans and choices free meals for the first month of school, assistance accessing public assistance, and other eforts to address specific needs; Use lessons from pilots to inform design of aid

Aid programs strongly emphasize BA Allow Cal Grant for programs as short as four months over other options (consistent with Pell Grants) Support Choices Spur Innovation and Spur Innovation Fixed grant amount is awkward ﬁt for Expand Cal Grant availability, and implement value measures widely divergent value of private college options

Aid programs are very complicated to Broaden and strengthen the Cal Grant explain and administer

Colleges' estimates of price and aid can Provide families with early, reliable, comparative expense-and- be difcult to access and even harder to aid information compare

Colleges' award letters are often difcult Identify or develop a web-based award comparison tool; Link to decipher and compare schools' awards to comparison tool

Too few counselors available to provide Upgrade website to make personalized information about aid reliable ﬁnancial aid advising prominent; expand CSAC ﬁnancial aid advising capacity Earlier Information Earlier Provide Better and Provide

Some families that could save for college, Reach out to families when children are young to encourage don't them to plan for college

The Century Foundation | tcf.org 6 Attachment 1.1

Broaden and Strengthen Closing eligibility gaps and connecting the Cal Grant to the Cal Grant need requires a new approach at private colleges as well. We recommend setting the Cal Grant for private, nonprofit Frequently, and especially at public institutions, students’ colleges at the maximum set for a UC Cal Grant, but taking greatest needs are not related to tuition, but instead are steps to ensure that the state is not overpaying, given what generated by other expenses, such as books, food, housing, students are getting. and transportation. The bulk of CSAC aid, however, is linked simply to tuition prices, without taking into consideration Step 1: Reconfigure the Cal Grant the full set of expenses students face in order to commit In Step 1 of our recommended plan, the legislature would themselves to their studies. At the same time, the current replace the age, GPA, time-out-of-school, income, and Cal Grant includes a patchwork of grant types (A, B, C, and asset requirements with a simple consideration of Expected both entitlement and competitive grants) with a variety of Family Contribution (EFC), as determined through the eligibility requirements that create complexities for students, FAFSA.4 Including age and GPA requirements makes little CSAC, and schools. The resulting aid system is too difcult sense from a policy perspective - it leaves out thousands of to understand, and in some cases, creates clif efects for adult students with need and adds dual, often inequitable students and families, or fails to reach students who have academic requirements on top of school admission significant need. standards. We project that, if the legislature removed these unnecessary eligibility requirements, hundreds of thousands We recommend consolidating the current grant types to of students would become eligible for the new Cal Grant. one Cal Grant, while at the same time shifting from the current tuition-centered approach to one that focuses on the At UC campuses, CSAC would award a Cal Grant to unmet needs that students face, including tuition and other all low-income and middle-income California resident expenses. To adequately address those needs, the federal undergraduate students, rather than just some. And rather methodology that is used to determine both a student’s or than going mostly to students left out by the current Cal family’s ability-to-pay and the expenses they will face will Grants, institutional aid instead would be provided to all need to be refined to better align the expectations of low- eligible students on top of the Cal Grant, meaning nearly all income and middle-class family contributions with the high of the recipients who would receive a tuition-level Cal Grant cost of living in California. under the current design would receive at least as much total aid under the revised approach. At CSU schools, we expect At UC and CSU, simplifying the Cal Grant is made easier a similar shift, with institutional aid building on top of the and less costly by the fact that those two systems supplement Cal Grant, rather than going mostly to students who were the Cal Grant with considerable amounts of institutional aid. denied a Cal Grant. However, because the Cal State system At the UC in particular, delinking the Cal Grant from tuition is currently unable to cover all denied students through the and moving to meet need will require a rearrangement of State University Grant (SUG), the legislature would need aid between the Cal Grant and institutional aid, but not to appropriate additional funding to ensure that, for each significantly more resources. At the CSU, meeting need student, the Cal Grant and the SUG grant combine to over time will require some additional state investment.1 provide the necessary level of aid. These investments mean The needs of community college students are substantial that Step 1 would begin to reduce students’ reliance on debt and will also require additional investment. Over time, the at CSUs and academically harmful levels of work at both legislature should increase the Cal Grant enough so that, CSUs and community colleges. combined with Pell and institutional aid, students at UCs, CSUs, and community colleges would have a viable pathway to attaining a degree with no or little debt.

The Century Foundation | tcf.org 7 Attachment 1.1

There are a couple of diferent ways that this broadening aid to students attending UC and a modest increase in aid of the Cal Grant at UC and CSU could be achieved; for CSU students, we recommend a signiﬁcant expansion both should aim for the Step 1 afordability target: a limit of aid at the community colleges. Taking into consideration on the amount of “self help” funds from work and/or loans a student’s full estimated cost of attendance, the legislature expected from any California resident student. (For Step should provide a Cal Grant Award to community college 1, we recommend a level no higher than the current UC students for whom the Pell Grant (if any) and their EFC guideline of $11,000.) The most viable method is probably leaves more than $8,000 of unmet need.7 to spread and stack. Under this approach, both the Cal Grant and institutional aid would be spread, based on need, The strict four-year duration of the Cal Grant creates across the broad population of California residents, with the complications for community college students, who maximum Cal Grant set and funded at a level such that the frequently ﬁnd that there are additional courses they need combination of all grant aid meets the afordability target. either before or after transfer. Using up more than two years One downside of this approach is that at current funding of their eligibility at the community college, however, means levels the Cal Grant portion would wind up being lower they do not have even two years of aid left for the four- than tuition, creating the false impression that grant aid year institution. The legislature should consider providing had been cut. We recommend addressing this by having an additional semester or two of eligibility to address this the institutions provide a match so that the Cal Grant is at problem. the tuition level. Institutional aid would be stacked on top, addressing non-tuition expenses. Additional Eligibility Changes

A second approach would be for the legislature to combine We recommend that when the legislature consolidates the CSAC-provided grants and institutional grants into single Cal Grant and removes age, time-out-of school, GPA, and grants that meet or approach the afordability target. non-EFC income and asset requirements, it also harmonizes eligibility with most aspects of the Federal Pell Grant Both approaches base the Cal Grant award on the goal of program. Cal Grants would be: providing enough grant aid to meet an afordability target that takes into account all college expenses rather than just + based on the EFC rather than separate tuition. While basing the grant on tuition provides a simple income and asset cutoffs; message, students face a much broader range of costs— + available to transfer students, whenever fees, housing, food, books, supplies, and transportation— they transfer; that ultimately determine whether college is afordable for + available for any degree or certificate program them or not.5 that is Pell eligible (which includes programs as Community College Students short as about a semester); fully available in the freshman year; and Community colleges enroll more low-income Pell Grant + based on a requirement that recipients make recipients than do CSU, UC, and California’s nonproﬁt satisfactory academic progress, but with no specific colleges combined.6 Yet CSAC’s aid programs currently grade point or test requirement for initial eligibility provide little support to community college students, and the (other than what is required to be admitted to the community colleges lack the means to generate institutional college). aid in the way that UC and CSU do. While we view Step 1 of our reform proposal to be largely a rearrangement of

The Century Foundation | tcf.org 8 Attachment 1.1

However, we recommend the Cal Grant maintain some CSU, and expanding Cal Grants to far more community diferences from the Pell Grant program. The legislature college students also based on current need measures. should make Cal Grants: Under Step 2, the state would implement revised measures of available family resources and expenses, and would + available for the equivalent of two years at a establish the Cal Grant level and afordability targets based community college and four years total (rather than on those revised measures.10 the Pell Grant’s six years);8 + available only to California residents; include Revise the Expected Family Contribution Dreamers;9 Many Californians live in high-cost areas. But federal + tailored to specific institutions or segments; and estimates of family resources available for college (the + reach higher levels of family income than Pell EFCs) do not take into account geographic diferences in grants. cost of living, making them potentially unreliable for many low-income and middle-class Californians. For example, We recommend seeking additional input on other aspects of a family of four earning $90,000 in expensive areas of alignment with Pell grants, including availability to students California faces far higher housing costs than a family of without a high school diploma (in limited circumstances four in other parts of the country. At least one state has consistent with federal ability-to-beneﬁt provisions); allowing taken steps to address this ﬂaw: for its state aid, Maryland for acceleration, as “summer Pell” does; and eliminating or uses an EFC that is adjusted based on regional cost of living changing the March and September application deadlines. diferences.11

Step 2: Implement Revised We recommend that CSAC analyze the question of Measures of Expenses and Need adjustments to the federal EFC during Step 1, and implement a revised version of the EFC in Step 2 to use in Under Step 1, the level of the Cal Grant would be based on determining state aid. One regional approach to consider is aiming for the current afordability target at both UC and to use the “commuting zones,” developed as an alternative

TABLE 1 Grant Aid at California’s Public Institutions Currently Totals More Than $6.5 Billion (dollars in millions)2

University of California State California California system University system Community Colleges Undergraduate 220,000 360,000 800,000 enrollment (full-time equivalent)

Federal Pell Grants $380 $960 $1,600

Cal Grants $890 $610 $100

Institutional Aid3 $740 $600 $800

Note: Community college institutional aid includes BOG fee waiver. Source: U.S. Department of Education (Federal Student Aid, and the National Center for Educa- tion Statistics, California Legislative Analyst’s Ofce, California Student Aid Commission, University of California Ofce of the President, California State University).

The Century Foundation | tcf.org 9 Attachment 1.1

to political boundaries.12 The regional diference in cost of comparison tools would ﬂag that the institution is more living could easily be inserted into the appropriate place in afordable than other institutions. Likewise, an institution the federal formula used to determine ﬁnancial need.13 that has instituted programs of free or low-cost textbooks or computers will be able to show that available aid goes The revised EFC would not apply to federal aid, but farther than at schools with higher costs. developing and using a better approach for state aid establishes a foundation for a possible change at the federal Depending on how cost of living is set, a more standardized level in a future reauthorization of the federal Higher system may also create unintended consequences for the Education Act. ways in which students make decisions. For example, the new system should not structure cost of living budgets in a way Standardize Cost of Attendance Estimates that might discourage a student from economizing and living at home if they had planned to do so. CSAC would need CSAC should establish a standardized methodology—one to address those kinds of challenges in building the cost of that takes regional cost of living diferences into account— attendance methodology. More detailed recommendations to determine the cost of attendance (COA). Doing so will on how to do that are included in Appendix 7. ensure both that students receive aid that more consistently addresses the costs they face and that the new system does Step 3: Expand the Cal Grant to Reduce or not create problematic incentives when schools set costs.14 Eliminate the Need for Loans

There are currently wide variations in calculating student In Step 3, CSAC would analyze the changes to the EFC budgets by institution and sector. For example, the UC and cost of attendance and adjust further, if necessary. system accounts for housing and food costs that students Meanwhile, we recommend that CSAC experiment with incur when living at home with parents, recognizing that ways of providing for students’ needs (see the Fund for many students must still contribute to the household. The Innovation in College Afordability below), leading to CSU system does not seem to account for those costs possible suggestions for altering approaches to aid in a at all. Budgets for books and supplies also vary widely particular segment or more broadly. Finally, based on an across institutions. It is an important role for CSAC, which analysis of the gaps that remain in the system of financial should examine students’ actual experiences, to make aid, in Step 3, the legislature would provide the funding to recommendations for improving the accuracy of the reduce or eliminate the “loan and work expectation” in the estimates, work with institutions to use new estimates, and system, providing a pathway to a degree with no or little oversee the implementation of these more standardized debt for most students. COA estimates across the public system. It is important to note that, even if the legislature provided One of the hazards of pegging a grant to a cost of enough funds to eliminate the calculated need for loans, attendance as defined by the institution is that it can loans would still be necessary in the system. Students may encourage (or at least fail to discourage) institutions to ofer choose to borrow instead of working the hours assumed in or require costly components, such as expensive dorms or self-help work expectations, and it may be difcult for some high-priced textbooks. Alternatively, institutions may lowball students, particularly in certain regions, to schedule the work certain cost-of-attendance figures to make the college hours needed or to find full-time work over the summer, for seem more afordable than it really is, if they are trying to example. Students may choose a more expensive dorm or meet afordability targets. Under a standardized approach, meal plan, or accept an unpaid summer internship rather an institution that manages to keep dorm costs low would than work to earn money for college expenses. And parents not have aid taken away from students; instead, CSAC’s of dependent students may not be able or willing to fund

The Century Foundation | tcf.org 10 Attachment 1.1

FIGURE 1 Many Low- and Middle-Income Californians Are Denied Cal Grants

FIGURE 2 UC Often Provides Grants to Students Denied Cal Grants

The Century Foundation | tcf.org 11 Attachment 1.1

FIGURE 3 Under Step 1 the Cal Grant Would Be Provided More Broadly, with UC Aid as a Supplement

FIGURE 4 In Steps 2 and 3, Additional Funding Would Support More Non-Tuition Expenses

The Century Foundation | tcf.org 12 Attachment 1.1 their full calculated EFCs. CSAC should consider playing a An important value of California community colleges— role in ensuring that the loans that students do take out are and one that the legislature should maintain—is their open, fair and manageable. “ungated” design. They are for anyone who wants a formal learning opportunity, whether as part of a plan hatched in II. Spur Innovation and Support high school, the sudden result of a disruptive event such as Quality Choices losing a job, or a simple impulse to give college a try. But this open door policy often means that entering students have While college afordability is about money, it is also about not completed all of the paperwork needed for aid. The choices that colleges and students make. Nudging those state could use this fund to pilot various approaches to the choices in constructive directions may require CSAC and challenge of walk-on students, such as first-term-first-day the legislature to take new approaches. Here we suggest textbook programs for all students, free meals for the first some shifts to consider, and recommend creating the month of classes, transportation buddy programs, and other capacity to test innovative approaches. initiatives.

Not Just Bachelor’s Degrees! As CSAC and campuses learn from these approaches over time, in Step 3, it may be appropriate to replace traditional Currently the Cal Grant is geared almost exclusively to four- aid approaches with diferent designs in some circumstances year degrees, except for the very small Cal Grant C program. (for example, having arranged meals for community colleges We recommend that the Cal Grant at community colleges at the beginning of the term, or pre-purchasing textbooks allow and even encourage the completion of certiﬁcate and for common ﬁrst-term classes). associate’s degree programs, whether vocational or transfer- oriented. Furthermore, students who use a year or two of Cal Grants at Private Colleges their Cal Grant eligibility for those programs should be able to claim the remainder of their four years of Cal Grants at We recommend that CSAC allow students to use these a four-year college, whether or not that was their original new Cal Grants at private colleges—as they currently do— intention. but also recommend that CSAC ensure that the amount of the grant is not excessive, given the school’s spending on Experiment with student instruction. Innovative Approaches to Aid Public vs. Private Institutions Even as the legislature and CSAC pursue a phased approach to delinking the Cal Grant from tuition and connecting it to At California’s public institutions, the state has direct or unmet need, and then updating the EFC and standardizing indirect control over every aspect of the colleges’ operations. cost of attendance estimates, CSAC and schools should There is an annual negotiation over funding levels, but continue to pursue additional ways in which to bring down ultimately, state administrators determine the number costs in the system and best serve low-income students. of California residents who will be served, the level of We recommend that during Step 1, the state make a large, enrollment of low-income students, the level of core support nonrecurring investment in a Fund for Innovation in College provided through appropriations, the tuition to be charged, Afordability. The fund would be used to test and evaluate the Cal Grant that helps some students pay tuition, and the creative approaches to providing aid to low-income or amounts and targets of institutional aid. For the most part, struggling students. These pilots are particularly needed at salaries and budgets are transparent, and virtually everything community colleges, but should not necessarily be restricted the institutions do is subject to a potential state audit. to that segment.

The Century Foundation | tcf.org 13 Attachment 1.1

In short, in the context of the public institutions, the chance institution’s average per-student spending on instruction. of public debate about the colleges’ spending decisions is Institutions are already required to report those instructional high, but the hazard of the public purse being unwittingly cost numbers to the federal government. taken advantage of is relatively low. CSAC could, over time, research and assess alternative With institutions not operated directly or indirectly by the protections for the state’s investment. For example, CSAC state, however, there is the potential for a third-party-payer could consider limiting Cal Grant usage at private colleges problem: it is difcult for the payer to hold the institution to those that have demonstrated that their tuition price is accountable, leaving taxpayers and the students vulnerable. not based on aid availability.15 A diferent approach could Should private colleges make any particular afordability be to ofer Cal Grants only to students who demonstrated commitment to students receiving state aid? Should highly enough academic preparedness that they were admitted selective institutions be expected to enroll a critical mass of to at least one CSU or UC, or demonstrated that they low-income students, or community college transfers, to be compared their options by applying to CSU or UC. This eligible for state support? What level of quality should be would, in efect, mean that the state would rely on public expected for the state investment? We recommend that, at community colleges to serve as the state’s open access a minimum, the state attempt to address the latter question, institutions. assuring that a school is providing value for the money. The Cal Grant is currently restricted to private colleges Strengthening Protections for California’s Expanded located in California. Opening up the program to colleges Investment across the country would present a major oversight burden on CSAC, and would provide little added benefit in terms of The original purpose of the Cal Grant program included the diversity of choices available to students. One possible tapping the private nonprofit colleges at a time when the exception, however, is HBCUs, which advisors told us are public four-year institutions did not have the space for every of particular interest to some African-American high school eligible Californian. Many colleges are serving exactly that students. We suggest CSAC explore the idea of HBCU role—and while a few outlier private colleges have very large eligibility for Cal Grants in some circumstances, perhaps endowments that they could use to support low-income starting with transfer students.16 students, most do not. At the same time, there is a wide range of variability in the return that the state is getting on For-Profit Colleges and Similar Institutions their Cal Grant investment: while many colleges spend far more per student on instruction than they receive in Cal The financial restrictions and accountability requirements of Grant funds, at some colleges, the Cal Grant exceeds the public and nonprofit institutions have long been successful amount spent per student on instruction by more than a regulations in terms of preventing consumer abuses. The factor of two, suggesting that taxpayers may be overpaying. financial incentives that can drive for-profit institutions to Expanding Cal Grant eligibility means an increase in the become predatory are restrained at public and nonprofit potential taxpayer cost and risks beyond the current system. institutions, where trustees cannot have a financial interest in the schools’ profit margins, and revenues must be reinvested CSAC should continue to provide Cal Grants to students toward the school’s educational or public-serving mission. attending private nonprofit colleges, and set the maximum Absent these restraints, enrollment at for-profit institutions, award based on the Cal Grant for UC (depending on how particularly when financed by third parties through it is designed). In order to ensure that student aid dollars government grants and loans, disproportionately leads to:17 are going to the intended target—teaching and supporting students—the award amount should not be higher than an

The Century Foundation | tcf.org 14 Attachment 1.1

+ Decreased student earnings: On average, and taxpayers are receiving adequate value. Furthermore, if students attending for-profit programs have a an institution claims to be nonprofit, CSAC should ensure negative return to attending college, according to that it is complying with the requirement that all revenue one study. And, those that were employed after be dedicated to educational or charitable expenses, and no leaving college earned less than if they had gotten trustee or key employee is taking the equivalent of profits. a job and not enrolled. + Growing debt balances: Nearly three-quarters III. Provide Better and of students who borrowed federal loans to attend Earlier Information for-profit colleges owe more on their loans two years after leaving school than they did when they We recommend that CSAC significantly scale its role in left, due to accrued interest and fees. Even among providing personalized, easy-to-understand information graduates, only 36 percent of federal student loan to students and families across California. Specifically, borrowers from for-profit colleges have made a we recommend that CSAC modernize its website, make dent in their debt three years after leaving college— available information about aid personalized and easy to half the rate of graduates from public or nonprofit find and understand, and create the functionality to allow colleges (71 and 74 percent, respectively). students to easily compare financial aid award letters. Doing so will complement changes in the aid program discussed + Unmanageable debt loads: Federal standards earlier, but could have a significant efect on college-going measure whether the debt loads of career education across the state even without changes to the Cal Grant. program graduates are reasonable given their post- college earnings. Because they typically have higher Background costs and lead to lower graduate earnings, virtually all (98 percent) of the programs that fail this test Compared to other states, California does a commendable are at for-profit colleges. (More than a third of the job of making college afordable. Tuition for in-state rated programs were offered by nonprofit or public community college students is the lowest in the country, and institutions.) is waived for almost half of students. Tuition is also relatively + Loan default: For-profit colleges account for low in the nation’s largest four-year public system, the one-third of federal student loan defaults, despite California State University (CSU) system. Average tuition enrolling just 9 percent of students. Of students and fees at public master’s universities across the nation who borrowed at for-profit colleges in 2003–04, for are $8,670 in 2017–18. CSU charges about $6,600. Even at example, more than half had defaulted during the the University of California, with tuition and fees of about twelve years that followed. $14,000, compared with an average of $10,830 for public + Student deception: Borrowers who have been doctoral universities nationally, the combination of Cal misled, defrauded, or otherwise wronged by their Grant awards and institutional aid results in net prices and college can petition to have their federal loans student loan debt levels that are below the national average. discharged. Former for-profit college students account for 99 percent of all such discharge Providing aid to needy students who have already made applications.18 their decisions about where and how to enroll in college will reduce the need to work long hours and borrow, and If there are reasons to risk tax dollars on institutions that can enhance the likelihood that students succeed. But a choose to operate as for-profit entities, the current grant level financial aid system has an important role to play before and consumer protections should be maintained while the matriculation: to influence those decisions in the first place, state considers additional provisions to ensure that students by making it possible for students to enroll at the colleges

The Century Foundation | tcf.org 15 Attachment 1.1

that best fit their needs and interests, to work less in college number), so users do not need to know the precise amount. so that they can study more, to get the computer equipment To illustrate, Figure 6 shows the initial financial aid and net and textbooks they need without delay, and not to be price estimate that appears if users identify as a current high distracted by difculties addressing basic needs, such as school senior (the default option) with a parental income food or adequate housing. around $50,000 (Canadian), planning to attend a university (as opposed to a college or private career college). This Many students and parents dramatically overestimate the estimate appears after users enters only two pieces of price of postsecondary education.19 Showing them their information. The values adjust if and when users select other estimated aid and net price and helping them apply for aid options, such as a diferent school year or living arrangement. makes them more likely to complete the aid application process for aid and enroll in college.20 Figure 7 shows the results of a “precise estimate” for a dependent student with an income of $55,000 planning The college expenses that a family will face should not be a to attend McMaster University as a freshman in computer mystery that is revealed months after the college application science. The functionality is similar to the net price calculators deadlines and only days before they have to make decisions. provided by most U.S. institutions as required by the Higher Families, especially those of limited means, need reliable Education Opportunity Act of 2008.23 In the Ontario information, personalized to their financial situations, at least case, however, the calculator is provided by a government as early as a child’s junior year in high school, and ideally even agency that allows users to generate estimates for multiple earlier. Adults without a college degree, too, need to be able institutions from the same website, whereas users in the to get information about aid without relying on recruiters United States must visit individual institutions’ websites or who may not always have the students’ best interests in mind. perhaps use a third-party service that aggregates estimates across multiple institutions.24 Create a User-Friendly Website In addition to making CSAC’s website more user-friendly, We recommend CSAC update its website to make more there needs to be more coordination across state agencies personalized and complete information a prominent feature. in terms of information about college options and financial As possible models, the financial aid agencies of Ontario, aid. Figure 8 shows a website launched recently by the Canada,21 and Oregon22 are noteworthy for their simplicity, California state agency that assists students who have been thoroughness, and usability. These websites also allow the victims of predatory postsecondary schools. With links users to easily create good estimates of expected financial for “student assistance” and “researching colleges,” it could aid and total price of attendance before and after aid and easily be confused as the place to go for information about direct them to apply for aid. The home page of the Ontario college options in the state and how to pay for them. Student Assistance Program features a questionnaire that quickly estimates financial aid and net price of attendance Make Estimates and Comparisons Easier after users enter seven elements of information: high school graduation year, marital status, number of children, California should go further than Ontario in the college approximate parental income, institution type, year expected price and aid information it makes available to its residents. to start postsecondary education, and whether the student First, the state should develop a partnership with the will live at home with a parent (see Figure 5). In addition California Franchise Tax Board, working with them to add a to these estimates, the website displays a link to apply for simple check-box to the state income tax form requesting a financial aid. financial aid estimate for a child or for an adult. Just with the information available to the state on the income tax form, The Ontario calculator has a list of incomes to choose CSAC would be able to produce a fairly precise financial aid from in wide bands (though each is represented by a single estimate for most families in the state. The Century Foundation | tcf.org 16 Attachment 1.1

FIGURE 5 Ontario Student Assistance Program Home Page (partial screenshot)

Source: Ontario Student Assistance Program (2018). Retrieved January 26, 2018, from https://www.ontario.ca/page/osap-ontario-student-assistance-program.

FIGURE 6 Ontario Student Assistance Program Initial Financial Aid Estimate (partial screenshot)

Source: Ontario Student Assistance Program (2018). Retrieved January 27, 2018, from https://www.ontario.ca/page/osap-ontario-student-assistance-program.

The Century Foundation | tcf.org 17 Attachment 1.1

FIGURE 7 Ontario Student Assistance Program Precise Financial Aid Estimate (partial screenshot)

Source: Ontario Student Assistance Program (2018). Retrieved January 27, 2018, from https://www.ontario.ca/page/osap-ontario-student-assistance-program.

FIGURE 8 A Website Operated by California’s Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education Could Easily Be Confused for CSAC

Source: Ofce of Student Assistance and Relief, http://www.osar.bppe.ca.gov/.

The Century Foundation | tcf.org 18 Attachment 1.1

FIGURE 9 A Mock California Income Tax Form 540 Showing a Request for Personalized Information about Paying for College

Second, CSAC should also provide estimates for multiple would require schools to enter their aid award information sample institutions, such as a nearby community college, into a predetermined format in order to participate in the a CSU campus, a UC, and, if possible, a private nonproﬁt Cal Grant program. Students could then login into their college. Our research showed that many low-income families personal CSAC page to easily compare aid awards. Doing do not know, or do not believe, that tuition costs at four-year so would also allow CSAC to analyze aid data over time and colleges, after aid, may be as low as those at community better understand which students face gaps within sectors colleges. Estimates could even include information about across the state. certiﬁcate programs below the baccalaureate level, particularly relevant for adults already in the workforce. Follow Up with Assistance and Advising

Providing personalized, comparative aid estimates can help CSAC can do more than provide information about to expand the options that low-income families consider. colleges, aid, and prices by supporting students through The information must be provided early, though, so that the aid application and enrollment processes. As increasing the students do not miss required courses or admissions amounts of information about individual institutions and application deadlines. programs become available online, students need more than just better information: they need guidance in choosing Improve and Compare appropriate paths given their goals, academic preparation, Financial Aid Award Letters and circumstances. But many institutions, particularly public high schools, are insufciently stafed to provide such CSAC should use this improved web presence to allow support, with student-to-counselor ratios as high as 1,500- students to compare aid awards across institutions. Award to-1.25 letters are often difcult to decipher and compare; at times, diferent schools might call the same grant by diferent Evidence is mounting that simple, low-to-modest-cost names, or even make it hard for students to determine coaching interventions that reach out to students during which award is a grant and which is a loan. CSAC should the summer after high school and throughout the ﬁrst consider building the functionality within its web portal that year of college can have substantial efects on enrollment

The Century Foundation | tcf.org 19 Attachment 1.1 and persistence. For example, a series of randomized Notes experiments found that text messaging, peer mentoring, and proactive outreach were all successful at reducing “summer 1 More than a third of California community college students live at home with a parent, though many of those students still have substantial expenses and may be melt”—students who secure enrollment but never show up— expected to help support the household. One-third figure based on an analysis of the data from NPSAS 2007-8: 35 percent of California community college student with costs of no more than $200 per student served. While lived at home with a parent. NPSAS:08 results (translating to about 699,000 out of personalized services would be more expensive, existing 2,018,000 students that year). 2 Pell Grant figures are totals from U.S. Department of Education school data for research suggests the impact may justify the cost.27 2015–16 (California for-profit colleges receive $575 million and nonprofits $250 million). Cal Grant data are from CSAC for 2017–18; an additional $230 million goes to private colleges. FTES enrollment figures are from UCOP and CSU Prior to enrollment, coaching services may help students reports and, for the community colleges, the National Center for Education Statistics (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_307.20.asp). interpret aid award letters and prioritize tasks and paperwork 3 “Creating a Debt-Free College Program,” Legislative Analyst Ofce, January 28 31, 2017, http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3540. Figures are for the UC required to complete the enrollment process. Grant (at UC); State University Grant (at CSU); and the Promise (BOG waiver) and Success/Completion grants at the community colleges. 4 Technically, we are recommending that grant levels be based on a student “self- CSAC should pilot low-cost initiatives to identify successful help” (work and/or loan) expectation that is equal to their cost of attendance minus the parent portion of their EFC (or the EFC itself for independent students). If the interventions, starting with a focus on students likely to have student contribution portion of the EFC is higher than the self-help expectation, the greatest financial need, as identified through CSAC’s then the self-help is increased to the student contribution. 5 Sara Goldrick-Rab and Nancy Kendall, “The Real Price of College,” The Century partnership with the state Franchise Tax Board. Foundation, March 3, 2016, https://tcf.org/content/report/the-real-price-of- college/. 6 Of Pell recipients at California institutions, the community colleges account for 47 percent; CSU 22 percent; UC 8 percent; nonprofit colleges 6 percent; and Encourage and Facilitate Saving for College for-profit schools 16 percent, according to our analysis of U.S. Department of Education data. The community colleges have a student headcount of 2.1 million, compared to 755,000 for UC and CSU combined. “Table 308.10. Total 12-month Helping a low-income family with young children to open enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by control and level of a college savings account can be an efective way of institution and state or jurisdiction: 2013–14 and 2014–15,” National Center for Education Statistics, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_308.10. encouraging the parents to assume that college is in the asp?current=yes. 7 Based on the assumption of working fifteen hours a week during the school year, child’s future, and to start setting aside money so that it and summer earnings or a subsidized loan of $3,500. can grow with interest. The San Francisco Unified School 8 If funding is available, eligibility should be extended, especially for students starting at a community college. The limit of two years at community colleges is District puts $50 into an account for every kindergartner, to prevent students from accidentally using too much of their eligibility prior to transferring. 29 and similar programs are being considered in other cities. 9 Competitive Cal Grants are currently not available to Dreamers. By expanding There is still much to learn about the potential impact and the Cal Grant to all eligible students, Dreamers would be able to receive the aid also. optimal design of these types of programs. CSAC should 10 The grant would be set as follows: partner with these eforts to provide useful information Cal Grant = COA - revised EFC(PC) - Pell (if any) - specified self-help expectation about college costs and aid, and to identify and test ways to The approach automatically results in a phase-out as incomes increase, preventing inform college plans in the years between kindergarten and any clif efects. The formula would look the same across public segments.The target would likely be consistent across the segments, although it could make 30 the senior year of high school. sense to have lower loan expectations at less selective institutions. If funds are not adequate to reach “afordability” then the target should be set at a dollar amount above that level (not a proportion). Low-income families should not be the only targets of 11 Maryland Higher Education Commission. (n.d.) Howard P. Rawlings Educational Assistance (EA) Grant. Retrieved January 26, 2018, from http://mhec.maryland. college-savings eforts. Middle- and higher-income families gov/Preparing/Pages/FinancialAid/ProgramDescriptions/prog_ea.aspx. frequently feel the squeeze of college costs and realize 12 See “Commuting Zones and Labor Market Areas,” United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ they should have saved more during the prior decade. And commuting-zones-and-labor-market-areas/. 13 The “Income Protection Allowance” and associated tables could be adjusted. low-income families do not have much disposable income Alternatively, EFCs could be reduced by a particular dollar amount. to draw on for savings, while higher income families do. By 14 See the relevant appendix for a more detailed discussion of this issue. 15 Under this approach, tuition above a particular level would need to be market- encouraging saving by higher income families CSAC would validated: there would need to be students, employers, or private scholarship programs paying the tuition price without federal grants and student loans, veterans be helping to address college afordability challenges well benefits, the Cal Grant, or a discount from the institution. into the future. At a minimum, information could be provided 16 The aid program in Washington, D.C., includes a specific allowance for HBCUs. See “DCTAG Participating Colleges and Universities,” Ofce of the through the partnership with the Franchise Tax Board. State Superintendent of Education, Washington, D.C., https://osse.dc.gov/dctag/

The Century Foundation | tcf.org 20 Attachment 1.1 participating-colleges-universities. tools-are-less-detailed-most-colleges-aid-calculators-are-gathering. 17 List is adapted from “Encouraging Innovation & Preventing Abuse in For- 25 Eric Bettinger, Angela Boatman, and Bridget Long,“Student Supports: Profit Higher Education: A 2018 Toolkit for State Policy Makers,” The Century Developmental Education and Other Academic Programs,” Future of Children 23, Foundation and The Institute for College Access & Success, December 13, 2017. no. 1 (2013): 93–116. Sources in footnotes. 26 Benjamin Castleman, Lindsay Page, and Korynn Schooley “The Forgotten 18 Yan Cao and Tariq Habash, “College Complaints Unmasked: 99 Percent of Summer: Does the Ofer of College Counseling the Summer After High Student Fraud Claims Concern For-Profit Colleges,” The Century Foundation, School Mitigate Attrition Among College-Intending Low-Income High School November 8, 2017, https://tcf.org/content/report/college-complaints-unmasked/. Graduates?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 33, no. 2 (Spring 2014): Of the 15,632 complaints regarding California schools, 15,521 concerned for-profit 320–44. schools. 27 Eric Bettinger and Rachel Baker, “The Efects of Student Coaching in College: 19 L. J. Horn, X. Chen, and C. Chapman, “Getting ready to pay for college: What An Evaluation of a Randomized Experiment in Student Mentoring,” NBER students and their parents know about the cost of college tuition and what they Working Paper 16881, National Bureau of Economic Research, http://www.nber. are doing to find out,” NCES 2003-030, National Center for Education Statistics, org/papers/w16881.pdf. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 2003. 28 Based on a proposal for federal support of Pell grant recipients found in Judith 20 E. P. Bettinger, B. T. Long, P. Oreopoulos, and L. Sanbonmatsu, “The role of Scott-Clayton and Sandy Baum, “Redesigning the Pell Grant Program for the application assistance and information in college decisions: Results from the H&R Twenty-First Century,” Policy Brief 2013-04, The Hamilton Project, 2013. Block FAFSA experiment,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 127, no. 3 (2012): 1205– 29 Information about San Francisco’s program is available at https://sfgov.org/ofe/ 42. k2c. 21 See the website of the Ontario Student Assistance Program, https://www. 30 Useful resources on this topic include “Children’s Savings Accounts: A Primer,” ontario.ca/page/osap-ontario-student-assistance-program. Asset Funders Network, https://assetfunders.org/wp-content/uploads/Childrens_ 22 See the website of Oregon’s Higher Education Coordinating Commission, Savings_Accounts_Primer_Brief.pdf; “Scholarly Research on Children’s Savings,” Ofce of Student Access and Completion, https://oregonstudentaid.gov. Corporation for Enterprise Development, August 2016, 23 P.L. 110-315, 122 Stat. 3078. https://prosperitynow.org/files/resources/CSA_research_fact_file_08-2016.pdf; 24 S. Jaschik, “The value of simplicity in estimating student aid,” Inside Higher Ed, and “Invest in Every Child’s Future with Prosperity Savings Accounts,” Prosperity August 21, 2017, https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2017/08/21/ Now, August 2017, https://prosperitynow.org/files/PDFs/08-2017_CSAs_101_ FAQ.pdf.

The Century Foundation | tcf.org 21 Attachment 1.1

Expanding Opportunity, Reducing Debt Reforming California Student Aid

APRIL 2018 — THE CENTURY FOUNDATION ROBERT SHIREMAN, SANDY BAUM, AND JENNIFER MISHORY Attachment 1.1

APPENDIX 1 Fiscal Analysis

As a part of our recommendations, we worked with CSAC, institutions, and RTI International to analyze the cost of our proposals. However, the challenges in obtaining data limited our options for crafting those estimates. We can begin to understand likely cost drivers and ascertain imprecise ranges, but cannot provide reliable cost estimates for all aspects of our recommendations.

Background on Data Constraints

A reliable estimate of the costs of a change in financial aid policy is best conducted with a database that includes all students who applied for financial aid (with information regarding income, assets, and dependency status), where they were actually admitted to college and enrolled, their enrollment status (such as part time versus full time), year in school, and their living situation as a student.

CSAC has information regarding every Californian who has applied for financial aid and anyone outside of California who applied to a California school. However, CSAC does not have data on whether or where any Californian has applied, or been admitted, or decided to attend, except for students who are ultimately awarded a Cal Grant. CSAC does know which schools that a financial aid applicant listed on the FAFSA. For some data analysis purposes, CSAC can infer that a student’s intention is to attend the school listed first on the FAFSA. This approach is imprecise, though, since CSAC does not know whether the applicant applied, was admitted, or chose to attend that institution.

To get an impression of the effects of different Cal Grant criteria on student eligibility, we asked CSAC to separate FAFSA filers by first-time filers and others, and to allocate each to the segment that they had listed first on the FAFSA. Those data were separated into various categories of income, assets and EFC, as well as high school GPA or community college GPA, if relevant. Based on those data, we are able to get a sense of the effects of some of the current provisions limiting Cal Grant eligibility.

GPA cutoffs

The data indicate that impact of the GPA cutoffs is relatively small. The larger impacts may be for students whose GPA data fails to match with their FAFSA data.

● Out of 86,266 applicants income-eligible for a Cal Grant A and aiming to attend UC or CSU, only one had a GPA below 2.0, meaning they would not have been eligible for Attachment 1.1

either the Cal Grant B or A. The Cal Grant A’s 3.0 GPA requirement affected under 10 percent of the UC-intending students, and about two out of five CSU-intending students. At both UC and CSU, a large proportion of those students with GPAs between 2.0 and 3.0 1 were low income and likely qualified for Cal Grant B using the 2.0 GPA cutoff. ● At the community colleges, of the 66,504 applicants income-eligible for the Cal Grant B, less than 2 percent were ineligible due to the GPA requirement. ● Of the 16,883 income-eligible for a Cal Grant A and aiming to attend a nonprofit/WASC institution, a fourth were not eligible due to their GPA; most of those were poor and likely 2 eligible for Cal Grant B. ● Of the 1,265 applicants income-eligible for a Cal Grant A and intending to enroll at other for-profit institutions, three-fourths had a GPA below 3.0. Most of those likely qualified for 3 Cal Grant B. Of those income-eligible for Cal Grant B, 9 percent had an ineligible GPA.

In addition to the high school GPA requirement, there is a community college GPA requirement of 2.0 or 3.0 in order for applicants to qualify for the Transfer Entitlement Cal Grant B or A. The patterns by segment are similar to the high school grades. Perhaps more significant, though, are the large numbers of applicants who appeared to be eligible for a transfer entitlement award but for whom no match was identified between the FAFSA data that CSAC has and the GPA data 4 provided by the community colleges.

Asset cutoffs

The Cal Grant uses a combination of income and asset cutoffs, depending on family size, to determine whether a student is eligible for a Cal Grant or not (with the figures varying depending on whether it is Cal Grant A or B, except independent students which have the same cutoffs). The federal EFC also considers income, assets, and family size, as well as other factors. But rather than discrete cutoffs, the EFC is an index that attempts to balance the various factors.

Data from CSAC indicate that among FAFSA filers who are income-eligible for the Cal Grant or Middle Class Scholarship, the asset cutoffs do not have a dramatic impact on eligibility for the Cal Grant or Middle Class Scholarship. (Some families may have been deterred from filing a FAFSA because of the cutoffs; those numbers are not known.)

1 At CSU and UC, 85 and 84 percent, respectively, of those ineligible for the Cal Grant A based on their GPA had EFCs below $3,000. 2 78 percent had an EFC below $3,000. 3 81 percent had an EFC below $3,000. 4 It appears that a match is found only about half the time, though more analysis is needed to determine how meaningful the numbers are, since CSAC does not have enrollment records.

Expanding Opportunity, Reducing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

Aid applicants ineligible due to the asset cutoffs (recent high school graduates) Cal Grant A Cal Grant B MCS UC-intending 6% 3% 5% CSU-intending 2% 1% 0% CCC-intending ù% 1% Nonprofit/WASC 6% 3% Other private 1% 0%

The data are similar for potential transfer entitlement students, except at UC where about 12 percent are ineligible due to the Cal Grant A asset ceilings.

Shifting to use of the EFC means that some students who were ineligible due to income or assets will become eligible for the Cal Grant, while some who would have been eligible will no longer be eligible. We did not have enough data or time to analyze the number of students who might fit each category.

Other eligibility restrictions

Based on the analysis of the effects of the asset and GPA cutoffs, it appears that the bulk of California residents who are enrolling in college and are needy but not receiving a Cal Grant are ineligible due to the restriction limiting the entitlement to recent high school graduates, age of transfers, and complications in matching GPAs (especially for transfer students). Determining the number of students now enrolling in college who would be eligible if these restrictions were relaxed requires student enrollment data that were not available to CSAC or to us.

Costs of the Step 1 recommendations

Without student-level data available, our subcontractor aggregated UC, CSU and national data to estimate institutional grants, Cal Grants, total grant aid, EFC and enrollment by dependency status and family income for each of the California public segments. Based on that analysis, they provided estimated costs of the Step 1 spread-and-stack proposal—broadening Cal Grant eligibility, and relying on the combination of the Cal Grant and institutional aid at UC and CSU to address need up to the affordability target.

For UC, the analysis suggested that the current combination of Cal Grants and institutional aid is sufficient to meet the affordability targets. This makes sense, since our proposal for Step 1 essentially adopts the current UC policy of providing the institutional aid necessary to bring students to a self-level of no more than $11,000, considering the parent contribution portion of the EFC along with Pell Grants and other grant aid. UCOP has affirmed this logic based on prior year figures (which would need to be adjusted given changing tuition and demographics).

The CSU analysis initially indicated a cost of about $19 million. This amount seemed low given that the CSU institutional aid policy is focused on tuition and not on cost of attendance, and does

Expanding Opportunity, Reducing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

not extend as high up the income scale as UC. A further analysis considered the possibility that the model might not be adequately considering student-level differences within the amounts that were averaged in income bands. Adjusting for this possibility yielded an estimate of $425 million. The average of these two estimates lands at e at $222 million, but leaves us with a large reliability range, not ready for policy decisions. With the time available, the CSU system office was not able to provide us with any opinion regarding the potential cost of the Step 1 policy.

The analysis of the community colleges yielded a figure of $1.5 billion, but was similarly based on inadequate data and is based off of a wide range. One complication that mostly affects the community college estimate is the treatment of students who are attending less than full time. The analysis we used combined all students into full-time equivalents. Under our proposal, however, students who are attending less than half time would not be eligible, and those attending half or three-quarters time would receive lower awards. The LAO-designed debt-free college proposal was similar in design to our proposal for the community colleges, and yielded a cost estimate of $2.2 billion.5 The difference might be partly a result of the LAO’s somewhat lower self-help expectation. But other figures are not matching up. For example, the LAO’s cost estimate limiting aid to just full-time students at the community colleges was only $500 million. Enrollment figures from CCCCO indicate that almost 60 percent of all FTE students are accounted for by full-time students.6 If providing grant aid for those students costs $500 million, then one might estimate the addition of the the half- and three-quarters time students as costing no more than an additional $350 million. We ran out of time to investigate the discrepancies further.

It is clear that the largest needs are at the community colleges. A previous analysis by the Institute for College Access and Success, based on data provided on applicants for competitive Cal Grants in 2014 that were denied due to shortages in funding, showed that over 309,000 students were apparently eligible and considered for Competitive awards (in other words, met income eligibility and GPA requirements but did not qualify for other reasons such as age).7 The state only funds about 2ý,000 competitive awards.

We were not able to estimate costs of the changes for the private institutions. As noted in the report, the state’s ability to influence and predict the actions of the segment is more limited, so there is greater hazard of strategic responses that could increase state costs. We advise the state to take more cautious step to prevent any unintended budgetary consequences of changes to institutional or student eligibility.

5 Legislative Analyst’s Office, “Create a Debt-free College Program,” http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3540. 6 CCCCO student counts by number of units taken for Fall 2017 show about 888,000 full-time equivalent students, with almost 500,000 attending full-time, 124,000 FTES of less-than-half-time students, and 349,000 FTES of students attending at least half time but less than full time. 7 https://ticas.org/sites/default/files/pub_files/ticas_competitive_cal_grant_modeling_memo_0.pdf.

Expanding Opportunity, Reducing Debt | The Century Foundation

Attachment 1.1

As is evident from the wide range of potential costs, using federal level data is a weak substitute for student-level data and yields highly imprecise estimates. CSAC or the Legislative Analyst’s Office should seek student-level data from the segments for purposes of developing more reliable estimates.

Finally, since the goal of financial aid is to encourage people to consider college and to enroll, or to enroll full-time instead of part-time, the broader availability of the Cal Grant could incent additional enrollment of low-income students, adding to Cal Grant costs and the need for more institutional aid. In the public segments, the size of any increase would be constrained by the fact that there is a limit to how much California resident enrollment can grow at the institutions with existing public funding, since net tuition is not enough to finance marginal costs.

Expanding Opportunity, Reducing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

APPENDIX Communications Plan

Understanding the differences in the multiple state aid programs, their eligibility requirements and award levels, and how they all fit together is difficult even for experts in California student aid; there is little doubt that the programs’ complexity creates significant barriers to students applying for college and to enrolling. CSAC has already launched several important initiatives to try to minimize those challenges. Consolidating state aid programs should remove more of those barriers and, importantly, provide CSAC with an opportunity to breathe new life into a statewide, college-going culture. CSAC should use this moment to launch a sustained public communications initiative to ensure that all Californians understand their student aid options; revamp its online presence to provide usable personalized information to students and families; and use outreach interventions informed by research in behavioral economics. CSAC can begin scaling up its communications efforts immediately, even as the legislature considers program reforms.

ECOENDAION 1 eerage the spotlight and launch a stateide marketing campaign to highlight CalGrant

If California takes on nn ony en e CSAC and partners will have a unique moment in time to leverage the spotlight on student aid and college choices.

e no

Research shows that misperceptions about colleges costs are common, and that low-income students often have the least information.1 In 2011-12, 31 percent of independent students in the U.S. did not apply for federal aid. Among dependent students, 10 percent of those whose parental income was below $25,000 and 21 percent of those from families with incomes between 2 $25,000 and $50,000 did not apply. Many low-income and first-generation students who would qualify for admission to selective institutions never even apply, and many potential college students are unaware of the availability of financial aid and believe that the published sticker 3 price of tuition is what they will have to pay if they attend. As a result, they do not investigate their options. Surveys show that that students turn to parents, friends, and counselors or teachers as they make educational decisions.4 et friends and family may struggle to fully grasp the system, and guidance counselors at high schools serving low-income students generally have high caseloads and little time or training for college advising. Few states provide the resources

1 Lindsay Page and udith Scott-Clayton, Improving College Access in the United States Barriers and Policy Responses, National Bureau of Economic Research, http//www.nber.org/papers/w21781.pdf, 7. 2 National Center for Education Statistics, National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 201, Power Stats, author calculations. 3 Caroline Hoxby and Christopher Avery, The Missing One-Offs’ The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low-Income Students, oon e on ono y 46, no. 1 (2013) 165. 4 Report on the Economic Well-being of U.S. Households in 2016, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 2017, https//www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2016-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201705. pdf.

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

necessary to ensure that all families have the tools they need to make informed choices. Below we detail two models that provide lessons learned for CSAC to build on in crafting an ambitious communications plan.

oel When Tennessee launched its statewide Tennessee Promise program, it used the moment to launch outreach to ensure that students filled out the FAFSA (also critical to ensuring that students could take advantage of the program). The Tennessee Higher Education Commission also used weekly data analysis to determine which localities had the lowest FAFSA completion rates and directed resources, such as workshops and one-on-one advising, to those locations in real-time.5 The campaign has been successful Tennessee now has the highest FAFSA completion rate in the country.6

oel The experience of Covered California, the state’s online health insurance marketplace, provides relevant lessons in communicating complicated decisions to low- and moderate-income residents. In 2013, California launched Covered California to provide a competitive marketplace where low- and moderate-income consumers can buy plans and receive large discounts; consumers cannot receive those discounts if they purchase plans off the marketplace, giving insurers a large incentive to participate. To make it a success, Covered California spent over

5Adam Tamburin, How Tennessee Plans to Use its Winning FAFSA Strategy to Boost College Graduation Rates, enneen, https//www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2017/07/25/how-tennessee-plans-use-its-winning-fafsa- strategy-boost-college-graduation-rates/503655001/. 6 Tennessee increased its FAFSA completion rate from about 60 percent in 2014 to about 70 percent in 2016. Tennessee Promise Annual Report, 2017, https//www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/thec/bureau/research/promise/2017TNPromiseReport.pdf. This compares to California’s FAFSA completion rate of 59 percent in 2016. Education Trust West, FAFSA and Cal Grant Application Rates, http//financialaid.edtrustwest.org/.

2 Attachment 1.1

1 million per year to run paid ads, an earned media campaign, and community outreach efforts.7 They researched their target audiences to understand their motivations, demographics, and even the sectors where they are mostly likely to work.8 Doing so allowed them to tailor messages, digital platform usage, and in-person outreach. The results have rolled in. Covered California has 1.4 million enrollees each year making the complex decision to purchase insurance. Their overall take-up rate was higher than in states without these extensive marketing efforts, and they also brought in more of their target consumers.

n o

We recommend that CSAC significantly scale its outreach and communications capacity and incorporate lessons learned from other models. Specifically, CSAC should

● Use the California Cal Grant revamp moment and the Covered California blueprint to launch a large, research-driven annual communications campaign to improve FAFSA completion rates and send students to CSAC’s new website to learn about how they can afford college. This campaign should include marketing (large paid media buys), with a scaled social presence on a range of platforms to reach target communities, community outreach through a larger Cal-SOAP program, and earned media during key decision times of the year. ● Use real-time data to target resources throughout the year to non-high-income districts with low FAFSA completion rates or with the fewest localized resources. ● Calculate and use easy-to-understand affordability benchmarks that send a clear message to potential aid recipients. For example, if all families under a certain dollar figure should expect at least free tuition, use those clearly understandable benchmarks in marketing. The UC system already uses this benchmark through its Blue and Gold guarantee. ● Continue scaled-up outreach beyond the first year, tracking and evaluating the impact of outreach strategies, and using data to inform adjustments in future years. Fund annual outreach at scale by using a funding mechanism similar to that employed by the Covered California insurance marketplace a fee for institutional participation. A per-Cal-Grant-recipient fee charged to all private colleges that receive Cal Grant dollars should, combined with state appropriations, provide enough to support the web portal and annual outreach.

ECOENDAION Proide students ith personalied early information through CSACs reamped online presence

Making data available to students is important, but in order to have a real impact, the data must be actively communicated and personalized enough to speak to individual circumstances.

e no

7 Peter Lee, ishaal Pegany, ames Scullary, and Colleen Stevens. Marketing Matters, Covered California, September 2017, http//hbex.coveredca.com/data-research/library/CoveredCAMarketingMatters9-17.pdf. 8 Marketing, Outreach, and Enrollment Assistance Stakeholder Working Group, http//hbex.coveredca.com/stakeholders/Marketing-Outreach-Enrollment/PDFs/BackgroundReading.pdf.

3 Attachment 1.1

Since 2011, Congress has required every college to post a net price calculator on its website, providing an estimate of how much students in different circumstances would be likely to pay for a year at that institution, after taking grant aid into consideration. In addition, the federal government has long had a College Navigator website with detailed information about the prices, 9 enrollment, graduation rates, financial aid, and more, and it recently developed a site that added 10 information about post-college earnings. But even detailed information on financial aid made available on websites may not be sufficient to support informed student choices. The individuals 11 most in need of this information don’t know about it, don’t seek it out, and may need help understanding how that information applies to their specific circumstances. Low-income students are unlikely to be aware that, because of differences in financial aid, they may pay more at Cal 12 State or even at a community college than at the University of California.

Experimental evidence confirms the importance of customizing information for individual students and of direct contact with and assistance from advisors. An experiment in which students and families received assistance with filling out financial aid applications at their local HR Block offices when they went to get help on their tax returns provides a compelling example. Merely providing information on financial aid availability had no effect on application and enrollment outcomes; but when staff filled out the forms with potential students or their parents, there were 13 large positive effects on applications to and enrollments in college. Among the findings, low-income high school graduates who received this service were eight percentage points more 14 likely than others to enroll in college.

In another experiment, researchers focusing on high-achieving, low-income high school students developed a program to improve access to highly selective colleges. They provided students with a set of highly-ranked colleges for which they might qualify, as well as others that would be very likely to accept them. They also provided them with information on attainable financial aid, based on their family incomes, and a waiver of application fees. This low-cost intervention ($6 per student) dramatically changed application patterns, increasing the probability that students would enroll at an institution matching their qualifications by 46 percent. On average, students who received the mailing enrolled in colleges with graduation rates that were 15 percent higher, instructional spending that was 22 percent higher, and student-related spending that was 26 15 percent higher than similar students not receiving the information.

9 College Navigator, National Center for Education Statistics, https//nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/. 10 College Scorecard, U.S. Department of Education, https//collegescorecard.ed.gov/. 11 Ben Castleman, Prompts, Personalization, and Pay-Offs Strategies to Improve the Design and Delivery of College and Financial Aid Information, in eon n o en e eol n o oe ollee e n eene ed. B. Castleman, S. Schwartz, and S. Baum (New ork Routledge, 2015). 12 Mac Taylor Creating a Debt-Free College Program, California Legislative Analyst’s Office, anuary 2017, https//www.asccc.org/sites/default/files/LAOReport-Debt-Free-College-31an17.pdf. 13 Eric Bettinger, Bridget Long, Philip Oreopoulos, and Lisa Sanbonmatsu, The Role of Application Assistance and Information in College Decisions Results from the HR Block FAFSA Experiment, ely onl o ono 127, no. 3 (2012) 120542. 14 Ibid. 15 Caroline Hoxby and Sarah Turner, Expanding College Opportunities, on e 13, no. 4 (Fall 2013). It is important to note that this strong response to personalized information delivered through the mail may be specific to the targeted group. These students represented a very small segment of the

4 Attachment 1.1

Finally, the limited evidence around early commitment college access programs suggests that bolstering the information and commitments made to students earlier in the process can have a measurable impact on enrollment.16

n o

The state should provide early information to children and families to familiarize them with the availability of financial aid and ensure the information is relevant to each families’ personal circumstances.

● CSAC should manage a process that would use information from state tax filings to send annual notices to parents of school children about the federal and state grant aid for which their children would be eligible if their current circumstances persist. This information will help parents and students to prepare for college both financially and academically. CSAC could also build partnerships with other state agencies administering means-tested programs where families with school children could receive notifications about federal and state grant aid. ● CSAC’s new online presence should provide quick gateways to easily accessible, personalized information and estimates about what level of aid students and families can expect (see nn ony en e report). ● CSAC should require schools participating in the Cal Grant program to provide their net price calculators through the CSAC website and design functionality that makes it easy for students and families to make comparisons across institutions while on the site. ● CSAC should require schools participating in the Cal Grant program to provide their aid award letters only through the CSAC website and students should go to their personalized CSAC portals to accept any aid awards.17 This will send students directly to the CSAC website, and in the process expose them to a searchable, comparable format to help them make decisions. ● CSAC should ensure its personalized information is mobile friendly. While it may be less likely that students and families make major decisions while viewing information in a mobile format, mobile phones are more likely to be the primary source of Internet access for young people, low-income individuals, and nonwhites.18

ECOENDAION se lessons from behaioral economics to guide all eternal communications and pilot targeted outreach programs

population, all scoring in the top 10 percent of SAT and ACT takers; they were applying to colleges with generous enough financial aid to make these highly selective institutions less expensive for them than most other options. This may help to explain the difference between the effectiveness of information alone in the HR Block study and the information provided in this experiment. 16 Robert elchen and Sara Goldrick-Rab, Accelerating College nowledge A Fiscal Analysis of a Targeted Early Commitment Pell Program, onl o e on 86, no. 2 (2014) 199232, http//theeduoptimists.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Accelerating-College-nowledge-Accepted-ersio n.pdf. 17 ust as insurers can only sell discounted insurance plans on Covered California. 18 Mobile Fact Sheet, Pew Research Center, http//www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/.

5 Attachment 1.1

As CSAC considers revamping its web presence and communicating new eligibility requirements to the general public, we recommend the Commission leverage research-backed nudge strategies to support students through the financial aid and college choice process.

e no

There is strong evidence from behavioral economics and the cognitive sciences that it is not sufficient just to make information available and expect that the people who need it will have the awareness, time, and wherewithal to take advantage of it. Although having a wide array of choices can be a good thing, people frequently have difficulty making decisions that require comparisons involving many different criteria. Weighting the importance of graduation rates, geographical location, programs offered, size, price, and many other factors can be daunting. The bandwidth required to process college information creates particular strains for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who have to devote time and energy to addressing immediate 19 survival issues.

The evidence from behavioral sciences about the impact of reminders provided l e, of asking people to commit in advance to carrying out tasks at a specified time, and of simplifying 20 and ordering the options people face is mounting. Low-cost, low-touch interventions can have a significant impact on both behaviors and attitudes. For example, a seminal study showed that switching a pension plan registration from requiring new employees to check a box if they wanted to join the plan to requiring them to actively opt out if they did no want to participate 21 significantly increased participation.

Researchers and practitioners have begun to apply these principles to decision making in higher education.The idea of making the default option one that is mostly likely to lead to success is behind the creation of structured curriculum pathways in community colleges. Leaving students to choose without guidance among thousands of courses is less effective than designing a set of 22 courses they will take unless they actively choose to make substitutions.

Additionally, several higher education studies have used nudge text messaging and shown results. In one experiment, researchers found that an automated, personalized text-messaging campaign to remind high school graduates of important summer tasks significantly increased the

19 Ben Castleman, Prompts, Personalization, and Pay-Offs Strategies to Improve the Design and Delivery of College and Financial Aid Information, in eon n o en e eol n o oe ollee e n eene ed. B. Castleman, S. Schwartz, and S. Baum. (New ork Routledge, 2015). 20 Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, e on eon o el el n ne (New Haven ale University Press, 2008). Healey Whitsett and Tom Allison, College Information Design and Delivery, 2015, http//younginvincibles.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/college-information-design-5.28.2015-FINAL.pdf. 21 Brigitte Madrian and Dennis Shea, The Power of Suggestion Inertia in 401() Participation and Savings Behavior, ely onl o ono 16, no. 4 (2001)114987. 22 udy Scott-Clayton, The Shapeless River Does A Lack of Structure Inhibit Students’ Progress at Community Collegesin eon n o en e eol n o oe ollee e n eene.

6 Attachment 1.1

23 number of disadvantaged students accepted to college who actually enrolled in in the fall. In another, researchers sent a series of text messages to twelfth-graders in Texas and Delaware high schools who provided a mobile phone number reminding them to complete a FAFSA, with the option to access follow-up assistance. The estimated marginal cost was approximately $8 per student. In Delaware, FAFSA completion rates increased by five percentage points, and in Texas, students completed their FAFSAs earlier and were four percentage points more likely to matriculate.24

n o

It is becoming increasingly clear that changes in the way information and options are framed can have a significant impact on student choices, and that small and subtle pushes or nudges can measurably improve student outcomes. We recommend that

● CSAC create texting campaigns that send reminders at critical times to ensure students apply for financial aid, designing the outreach in a way that allows the Commission to evaluate differences in outreach techniques over time and connect students to follow-up assistance as needed. ● CSAC work with the State Franchise Tax Board to recommend, at the appropriate time in the tax filing process, that families okay getting personalized information about financial aid, rather than making it a neutral option. ● CSAC’s website allows students to sort personalized information based on critical decision points. For example, if CSAC provides award notices in a standard template through their website, allow students to sort awards by factors students should consider, such as graduation rate, overall total net cost and aid gaps, and other decision factors. CSAC should order the default presentation of information by the level of importance of information, given the research on college choice and success, and limit the sortable options to those that are most important and useful to students and families.25

Conclusion

The California Student Aid Commission has a unique opportunity to launch an ambitious and well-designed state communications campaign to increase informed access to college aid. CSAC can build on the progress made through program reforms to run a statewide marketing campaign, build a research-driven web presence and online functionality, and launch outreach programs that build on growing evidence from the field. CSAC should begin implementing these strategies immediately—most do not require the adoption of other reforms and can be prioritized based on potential impact and available resources.

23 Benjamin Castleman and Lindsay Page, Summer Nudging Can Personalized Text Messages and Peer Mentor Outreach Increase College-Going Among Low-Income High School Graduates EdPolicyWorks Working Paper Series No. 9, April 2013. 24 L. C. Page, B. Castleman, and . Meyer, Customized nudging to improve FAFSA completion and income verification, Social Science Research Network, 2016, https//papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfmabstractid2854345. 25 See discussion of order effects, Healey Whitsett and Tom Allison, College Information Design and Delivery, 2015, http//younginvincibles.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/college-information-design-5.28.2015-FINAL.pdf.

7 Attachment 1.1

APPENDIX eforms in Other States and Countries

This report describes recent student financial aid reform efforts in different states and nations that might inform financial aid streamlining in California. After arranging state reforms into seven categories, the report evaluates the benefits and risks of each program to students, aid providers, and institutions. The report does not include research studies administered to samples of 1 students that attempt to improve outcomes related to financial aid or other topics. One partial exception, described below, is a research study of text message reminders administered at a statewide level.

ethods We performed an environmental scan of all 50 states and selected countries for relevant financial aid reform efforts. In selecting countries, we focused on those most similar to California, namely developed countries with a substantial private postsecondary sector characterized by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as having relatively high tuition (which in this report also refers to mandatory fees) and moderate to 2 significant financial aid. For example, among developed countries, compared with the United States, only orea, apan, and the United ingdom have a higher percentage of postsecondary education funding provided by private funds (figure 1). Australia, Canada, and Chile have a lower proportion of private funding but were included for comparison purposes. We also examined the province of Ontario, Canada, which recently reformed its financial aid system.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 383 3 Expanding college opportunities for high-achieving, low-income students Doubling graduation rates: Three-year effects of CUNY's Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) for developmental education students Making College Work: Pathways to Success for Disadvantaged Students Education at a glance 2017: OECD indicators

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

Figure 1. Public and private spending as a percentage of total spending on postsecondary education 2014

SOURCE Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2017), Spending on tertiary education (indicator). Retrieved anuary 25, 2018, from http//dx.doi.org/10.1787/a3523185-en. We examined each reform to identify features that might be relevant for improving California’s financial aid system. We found that these efforts fall into seven categories user-friendly websites, high credit hour minimums, zero tuition, regional cost-of-living adjustments, simplified loan repayment, increased funding, and tuition caps (not strictly a financial aid reform but included because of its close relationship to financial aid).

serfriendly ebsite It is safe to assume that in 2018, every financial aid agency across the country and around the world maintains a website. However, some websites are more helpful 3 4 than others—those of the financial aid agencies of Ontario, Canada, and Oregon are noteworthy for their simplicity, thoroughness, and usability. These websites also allow users to easily create an accurate estimate of expected financial aid and total price of attendance before and after aid and direct them to apply for aid. The home page of the Ontario Student Assistance Program features a questionnaire that quickly estimates financial aid and net price of attendance after entering only seven elements of information high school graduation year, marital status, number of children, approximate parental income, institution type, year expected to start postsecondary education, and whether the student will live at home with a parent (figure 2). In addition to these estimates, the website displays a link to apply for financial aid.

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

Figure 2. Ontario Student Assistance Program home page (partial screenshot)

SOURCE Ontario Student Assistance Program (2018). Retrieved anuary 26, 2018, from https//www.ontario.ca/page/osap-ontario-student-assistance-program. The Ontario calculator has a list of incomes to choose from in wide bands (though each is represented by a single number), so users do not need to know the precise amount. To illustrate, figure 3 shows the initial financial aid and net price estimate that appears if users identify as a current high school senior (the default option) with a parental income around $50,000 (Canadian), planning to attend a university (as opposed to a college or private career college). This estimate appears after users enters only two pieces of information. The values adjust if and when users select other options, such as a different school year or living arrangement.

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

Figure 3. Ontario Student Assistance Program initial financial aid estimate (partial screenshot)

SOURCE Ontario Student Assistance Program (2018). Retrieved anuary 27, 2018, from https//www.ontario.ca/page/osap-ontario-student-assistance-program.

Figure 4 shows the results of a precise estimate for a dependent student with an income of $55,000 planning to attend McMaster University as a freshman in computer science. The functionality is similar to the net price calculators provided by most U.S. institutions as required by the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-315, 122 Stat. 3078). In the Ontario case, however, the calculator is provided by a government agency that allows users to generate estimates for multiple institutions from the same website, whereas users in the United States must visit individual institutions’ websites or perhaps use a third-party service that aggregates 5 estimates across multiple institutions.

Inside Higher Ed

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

Figure 4. Ontario Student Assistance Program precise financial aid estimate (partial screenshot)

SOURCE Ontario Student Assistance Program (2018). Retrieved anuary 27, 2018, from https//www.ontario.ca/page/osap-ontario-student-assistance-program. 6 Many students and parents dramatically overestimate the price of postsecondary education. Showing them their estimated aid and net price and helping them apply for aid makes them more

3 Getting ready to pay for college: What students and their parents know about the cost of college tuition and what they are doing to find out 33

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

7 likely to apply for aid and enroll in college. The primary risks to providing estimates of aid and net price are increasing the aid providers’ workload to handle additional aid and the incremental cost to update and maintain these elements of a website. There is also a tradeoff between simplicity and accuracy. It may be easier, for example, for users to enter income by selecting a range rather than entering a precise dollar amount and to disregard assets and other financial circumstances that determine aid amounts. However, students and their families who rely on estimates based on simplified criteria may end up with less aid than anticipated, leaving them with more unmet need than anticipated.

igh credit hour minimums Three U.S. states (Nevada, New ork, and Rhode Island) require state financial aid recipients to enroll each term for at least 15 credit hours (hereafter, credits), which is higher than the 12-credit minimum used to determine full-time status for most federal student aid. The logic behind this reform is that students who successfully complete at least 15 credits will accumulate enough to complete a bachelor’s degree in 4 academic years (120 credits on a semester calendar) or an associate’s degree in 2 academic years (60 credits on a semester calendar). In contrast, students who complete only 12 credits per term would take 5 years to complete a bachelor’s degree and 2.5 years to complete an associate’s degree. (Some public institutions and systems, such as the University of Hawai’i system and Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, have promoted the 15-credit minimum without requiring it for financial aid 8 eligibility. )

The advantage of the 15-credit minimum enrollment is that it puts aid recipients on a path to timely graduation if they complete these credits. But this policy also poses several risks to students and institutions. Some students cannot take 15 or more credits due to family or work obligations or because of a limiting disability. Required noncredit remedial courses might not count toward the 15-credit limit and, in any case, would not count toward a degree. The 15-credit minimum for state aid may be confusing to students and aid administrators who simultaneously have a 12-credit minimum for federal aid. Finally, students might attempt to skirt the rules by initially enrolling for 15 credits for financial aid purposes and intentionally dropping some courses later, which would undermine the purpose of the reform while possibly preventing other students from enrolling in the courses that get dropped.

ero tuition In recent years, four states and one country that had been charging tuition began waiving tuition for large populations of students, irrespective of financial need. Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Tennessee introduced zero tuition (or free college) policies for community colleges (public 2-year institutions). (California’s enactment last fall of Assembly Bill 19 set the stage for zero tuition for first-time, first-year community college students, though it has not yet taken effect.) New ork state now offers near-zero tuition for public 4-year institutions for virtually all residents as well. A recent zero tuition reform in Chile, though not universal, applies to

The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1273

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

9 students in the lower half of the income distribution at many institutions. Similarly, the Promise programs in many U.S. cities offer grants intended to cover tuition to all residents of a particular city.

The major appeal of the universal zero tuition concept is the simplicity of its message to prospective students if you attend college in this state, you will not pay tuition no matter what your financial circumstances are. Critics of these programs have pointed to several issues for students and states. One is that at many public institutions (including all California public institutions), tuition is significantly less than nontuition expenses (such as housing, food, and books). ero on, in other words, falls far short of zero e o enne. A second concern is that students may enroll in community colleges simply because they know that community college is tuition free. Some of these students would qualify for enough grant aid to cover tuition at a more selective 4-year institution, and in fact might have a lower total cost of attendance at a 4-year institution after figuring in nontuition expenses and institutional grant aid. Additionally, students who attend colleges that are less selective than their academic preparation would permit, known as undermatching, tend to have less positive outcomes during and after college. Another issue is that zero tuition programs have other conditions, like New ork’s postgraduation residency requirements, that may pose hurdles for students before, during, or after enrollment. Such conditions would likely impose administrative costs on the institutions or financial aid agencies that must track down students who left the state to reclaim the awards and any applicable interest or penalties. Additionally, from the state perspective, waiving tuition for students with no need means fewer dollars for students with need.

egional costofliing adustments Maryland adjusts its largest state grant program to account for regional differences in the cost of living, though we were not able to find documentation of 10 how they measure these differences. A Maryland Higher Education Commission employee informed us that these adjustments are based on data from the College Board but was unable to provide any further details. This approach has significant potential for a state with wide regional variation in cost of living like California. It might measure cost of living using an existing source such as the U.S. Department of Defense’s Basic Allowance for Housing, which is updated annually and is already used by the U.S. Department of eterans Affairs to calculate living 11 expenses for recipients of the Post-9/11 GI Bill based on the location of the institution. For instance, in 2018, the maximum stipend in the California State University system ranges from $1,358 per month (or $12,222 over 9 months) at Humboldt State University to $4,247 per month (or $38,223 over 9 months) at San Francisco State University.

The main downside to cost-of-living adjustments is the added complexity to the process of budgeting for and awarding grants. Presumably this process would be straightforward at the campus level, and most of the burden would fall on state agencies such as the California Student

Education in Chile Howard P. Rawlings Educational Assistance (EA) Grant 3 Post-9/11 GI Bill; Final rule 3 33

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

Aid Commission and on postsecondary systems and chains, all of which serve students in multiple locations.

Simplified loan repayment Over the last two decades, as college enrollment outpaced government appropriation, the United ingdom has moved from a system of tuition-free postsecondary education to one that charges tuition at substantial levels (equivalent to over $11,000 per year on average). Along with this change, it has also instituted a student loan system that automatically enrolls borrowers in an income-contingent repayment system that adjusts 12 monthly payments to a percentage of their earnings. In general, the automatic enrollment aspect of a policy like that in the United ingdom reduces the administrative burden on both students and lenders. Payments are deducted from paychecks, so borrowers cannot forget to make them. Monthly payments are set by policy (currently pegged at 9% of income above a certain threshold) to be manageable for borrowers even if their income unexpectedly drops.

This reform has little relevance for California’s current financial aid system, which relies almost exclusively on grants. If California were to initiate a significant state-financed loan program, it would face significant administrative hurdles implementing automatic payroll deductions for payments, particularly for graduates who move out of state. Moreover, many students have more favorable terms from existing federal loan programs, including several options for income-contingent repayment options.

Increased funding Chile, orea, and the United ingdom have significantly increased funding for their national financial aid programs. Other things equal, better funding benefits students by increasing amounts, increasing the number of recipients, or both. Beyond the cost of the aid itself, the main risk is that institutions will capture the increased funding by raising tuition accordingly, diminishing the efficacy of the grants to make college more accessible. There is considerable scholarly debate about whether and to what degree this occurs. One study comparing private for-profit institutions that do and do not accept federal Title I student aid 13 found that those that accept federal aid charge 78% more for tuition. A second risk is the marginal increase in the financial aid processing workload for institutions and aid providers.

et messaging We identified one statewide initiative, funded and implemented as a grant-funded research project rather than a state-sponsored policy, that is worth mentioning for achieving meaningful results at a low cost. In 2015, researchers sent a series of text messages to all 9,200 twelfth-graders in Delaware public high schools who provided a mobile phone number reminding them to complete a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). The estimated 14 effect was a 5-percentage-point increase in FAFSA submission. An intervention like this one

Lessons from the end of free college in England. 3 American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6 Customized nudging to improve FAFSA completion and income verification 33

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

would increase applications for financial aid, and it would be expected to increase enrollment in postsecondary education and use of financial aid. The estimated marginal cost of the technology was approximately $8 per student reached and about $150 per student who enrolled in college (not including staffers’ time spent managing the text messages and responding to queries). The primary risk for this intervention is that it would increase demand for financial aid, which would mean an incrementally bigger budget and workload for the funding agency and institutions.

uition caps orea and the United ingdom recently capped tuition to allow financial aid to 15 cover a greater proportion of nontuition expenses. (Australia, in contrast, removed tuition caps 16 in 2016. ) Although setting tuition rates is not a financial aid reform per se, it affects financial aid policy in these countries by freeing up funding for students’ living expenses. Limiting tuition obviously makes postsecondary education more affordable, other things equal, but it carries several risks if it were to be considered in California. For one, as noted, setting tuition is a separate process from distributing financial aid with different rules and actors that vary by sector. While California’s state government has significant authority over tuition for the California Community College and California State University systems, it has no direct control over tuition at the University of California, though it does exert influence through the appropriations process. The state government has essentially no influence over what private institutions charge. To the extent that tuition revenue is used to provide financial aid, needy students might receive less institutional aid at lower tuition levels. There is also no guarantee that institutions can maintain the same quality of education or serve the same number of students when tuition increases are restricted.

Happy education for all: Creative talent shapes the future . 3 Times Higher Education 33

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

APPENDIX Stakeholder Perspecties on CSAC Programs and the Grant Deliery System

To gather stakeholder input, we met with representatives of all of the state’s higher education segments, the -12 sector, college access providers, college students, research and policy organizations, scholarship providers, and state and local government. ey themes emerged from those meetings, reflecting the project’s focus on opportunities to reduce complexity and increase affordability.

● Student Eligibility Having multiple grants with complex and varying eligibility requirements, as well as inconsistencies in how required GPAs are calculated, lead to inequities in who qualifies and for what. ● Aid Availability and Receipt Funding levels and program design, and/or institutional choices affect aid availability and receipt, from whether eligible students actually receive a grant, to when they get their aid, to their access to student loans when needed. ● Application and Award Processes With multiple steps that too easily become obstacles, the combined federal and state financial aid process is difficult for students and parents to navigate, and it is administratively intensive and technologically inefficient for institutions. ● Affordability California’s aid programs leave most low-income students struggling to cover the full cost of attendance, including at community colleges. Levels of student homelessness and food insecurity and low completion rates signal affordability challenges across the public systems, and college is harder to afford in regions with higher living costs. ● Institutional Resources The funds available for financial aid administration and counseling, as well as for institutional aid, vary widely across segments and schools. Community colleges have by far the lowest resources per capita while serving the highest share of the state’s low-income students. ● Communication and Outreach It is harder than it should be to explain available aid and how to get it, and to make sure that potentially eligible students get needed information and support. Complex aid programs and processes, limited resources, and lack of data all contribute to communications and outreach challenges for schools, college access providers, and CSAC.

Stakeholders welcomed the opportunity to share their observations about California’s financial aid programs, policies, and systems. Although they did not all have the same priorities or areas of expertise, they raised many of the same issues and examples. And they all expressed a belief that reform is both possible and necessary.

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

SAEODES INEIEED

In anuary and February 2018, project staff gathered stakeholder input through meetings with representatives from the following systems and organizations

State higher education and -12 segments

● University of California (including a campus representative) ● California State University (including a campus representative) ● California Community College Chancellor’s Office ● the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities (including two campus representatives) ● Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising and MTI College (for-profit institutions) ● Riverside County Office of Education (representing -12)

State agencies ● California Department of Finance ● Legislative Analyst’s Office ● Staff of the California State Legislature ● California Franchise Tax Board ● Office of the Treasurer (Scholarshare savings program)

Other stakeholders ● California Community Colleges Student Financial Aid Administrators Association ● Student Senate for California Community Colleges ● California State Student Association ● California EDGE (Education, Diversity, and Growth in the Economy) ● ohn Burton Advocates for outh (which serves foster and homeless youth) ● East Bay College Fund ● uAspire Bay Area (which serves low-income high school students) ● The Institute for College Access Success ● The Education Trust West ● Campaign for College Opportunity ● Office of the Mayor of Oakland, ● East Bay Consortium of Educational Institutions

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

SAEODE PESPECIES

Here we summarize stakeholder concerns in eight themes coverage, meeting need, complexity, timing, regional differences, federal/state alignment, efficiency, and differences between segments. For the most part, these views focus on aspects of California’s financial aid system, but they occasionally refer to related topics such as state funding for public institutions and policies regarding institution and federal aid.

Because stakeholders sometimes asked not to be quoted, no names or unique identifying details are used in this summary, and no comment is attributed to a group consisting of fewer than three participants.

Coerage Stakeholders identified several important gaps in coverage for otherwise qualified students. Recent high school graduates must earn a high school grade point average of 3.0 or higher to qualify for Cal Grant A and 2.0 or higher to qualify for Cal Grant B. Stakeholders report that small discrepancies in which courses are used to calculate high school grade point averages sometimes affects which students are eligible for a Cal Grant. The income and asset ceilings present a problem to students and families who barely exceed the maximums but have trouble affording college without state grants, which leads some to request an adjustment to their stated finances.

A specific coverage gap is the B to A doughnut hole or No Cal Grant one, where students with income just above the cutoff for Cal Grant B and grades just below the cutoff for Cal Grant A cannot qualify for either award (though they may be eligible for a Middle Class Scholarship). Other students are excluded from eligibility because they are too old, they applied after the deadline, they applied too long after graduating from high school, or they used up their lifetime eligibility.

Students at about 20 community colleges face another coverage gap their colleges do not participate in the federal student loan program, so they cannot take out Direct (Stafford) loans. However, the recently enacted California College Promise legislation (Assembly Bill 19), the main feature of which is to eliminate tuition and fees for all first-time, first-year community college students, requires participating colleges to offer federal loans starting in 2019.

eeting Need Even among state aid recipients, awards may not be sufficient to cover the price of attendance for needy students. While Cal Grants cover tuition and fees at public institutions, higher awards could cover a larger portion of students’ non-tuition expenses, which for most students at public institutions exceeds tuition and fees. Stakeholders mentioned that the four-year Cal Grant eligibility limit is insufficient when many students take more than four years to earn a bachelor’s degree. A representative of an institution that offers numerous shorter programs supported by Cal Grant C remarked that many graduates would like return for a bachelor’s degree program but have exhausted their Cal Grant eligibility.

Some gaps in need are built in by design, particularly the feature of Cal Grant B that it does not cover non-tuition expenses in the first year. Other gaps seem to be unintended consequences of other circumstances. For instance, financial aid administrators may be reluctant to reclassify dependent students as independent, which in many cases would entitle the students to larger aid

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

awards. The reasons they cited were concern of being audited and found to be improperly awarding aid as well as because insufficient resources to process the required paperwork.

Compleity A common complaint was that the state grant process was needlessly complicated and difficult for students to understand. It was widely acknowledged that existing systems were antiquated, requiring students to take many steps that a financial aid office could do more efficiently using information it already has, such as completing the G-6 Transfer Entitlement Certification Form for Transfer Entitlement Cal Grants.

Some application steps seemed out of order, requiring needless effort such as requiring students to submit grades before confirming that they met the income eligibility requirements. Others were confusing to students. Many students do not realize they need to establish a WebGrants account with CSAC to receive state grants, and even among those who do, they often do not understand why. Nor does it help matters that notices of Cal Grant awards are mailed to students without notifying the institutions they are planning to attend. When students do not realize they must create WebGrants accounts or are unable to do so on their own, their respective institutions may not even be aware that they need help.

Similarly, students attending institutions that put other aid on a payment card sometimes were not aware that they had received a Cal grant not on the card. One community college financial aid office reportedly required applicants to present a driver’s license for identification, which many low-income students did not possess.

Even experienced financial aid professionals could not explain the rationale for arcane provisions of state financial aid policy like the two percent of Cal Grant B recipients at 4-year institutions whose grants cover tuition and fees in the first year. One organization attempted to diagram the various state aid programs but gave up when the flowchart became too complex. A financial aid administrator summed up the general sense of frustration in a rhetorical question If we can barely understand these aid programs, how can we explain them to students and parents

iming For many students, application due dates and disbursement dates are poorly synchronized with students’ needs. High school graduates who decide to enroll in community colleges during the summer have already missed the March 2 application deadline. Community college students can apply for the alternate aid cycle by the September 2 deadline, but many students are unaware of this possibility. Moreover, due to resource constraints, community colleges do little to promote this opportunity, and there are fewer awards available during this period.

Moreover, even when they are awarded, state grants often arrive too late to be useful. Even then, some institutions hold grant disbursements until the start of the term to avoid making payments to students who never enroll, which means that recipients have trouble paying for critical expenses like rent and food before they receive aid. (One participant proposed a safe harbor policy by which institutions could disburse small fractions of grants before the start of the term without being held liable for no-show students.) Late payment is particularly a problem for the Chafee Grant program for foster youth, where payments can be delayed as long as four months.

Institution representatives discussed other issues with the timing of state grants. In particular, the recent change to using prior-prior year income for the Free Application for Federal Student Aid

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

(FAFSA) and the option for students to submit FAFSAs as early as October of the year before enrollment puts pressure on institutions to make award letters earlier. At the same time, financial aid offices can only estimate the value of Cal Grants before the legislature’s une 15 constitutional deadline to pass the state budget. The timing of the state budget cycle also effectively precludes institutions with active summer enrollment from offering Cal Grants for summer terms because instruction begins before the budget is enacted.

egional differences While tuition and fees are relatively uniform across public campuses across the state, stakeholders acknowledged that living expenses are not. By way of illustration, the Department of eterans Affairs sets the value of housing stipends for Post-9/11 GI Bill recipients according to regional cost of living where the institutions are located. In 2018, the maximum stipend in the CSU system ranges from $1,358 per month (or $12,222 over 9 months) at Humboldt State University to $4,247 per month (or $38,223 over 9 months) at San Francisco State 1 University—a greater than threefold difference.

Federalstate alignment Stakeholders noted inconsistencies between state and federal aid programs. Some differences work to the benefit of broader or more comprehensive financial support for California undergraduates, such opening up eligibility for most aid programs under 2011 Assembly Bill 130 (the California Dream Act) and the establishment of the DREAM loan program. In other areas, California’s state grants are less generous than their federal counterparts. As described above (Coverage), Pell recipients may fail to receive Cal Grants because they missed the state’s application deadline, they had income and assets just above the sharp eligibility threshold, they were too old, they graduated high school too long ago, their high school grades were too low, or they exhausted the period of eligibility for Cal Grants.

A separate area of concern is a state requirement that Cal Grant-awarding institutions offer at least two out of three federal campus-based programs. With the recent termination of the federal Perkins loan program and little prospect of its resurrection, that means institutions must offer both federal work-study and federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants.

Efficiency The biggest complaint from institution representatives is the inefficiency of administering the state aid programs, particularly the onerous paperwork and processing demands. This assessment was shared across the postsecondary segments. Stakeholders pointed to outdated and inefficient technology for institutions to communicate with CSAC and many manual processes that could be automated. Certain components of the application, such as income verification and participation in assistance programs like CalFresh (food stamps), could be performed by state agencies (other than CSAC) without requiring any intervention by students or institutions. Participants lauded CSAC for recent conversions of many paper forms to electronic submissions, but they complained that some processes still cannot be completed electronically, including electronic payment of certain grants. One representative singled out midyear transfer as the biggest headache of all.

Community colleges in particular have little incentive to encourage students to apply for and receive state aid because it is burdensome to administer and does little to support financial aid operations. Nearly all needy students already have their tuition waived by California College

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

Promise Grants (formerly known as Board of Governors Fee Waivers), so state aid tends to go toward books, living expenses, and other non-tuition expenses that do not directly benefit the colleges. At the same time, community college financial aid offices have very limited funds to administer aid programs (see Differences between segments). One participant contended that from the community colleges’ perspective, the Cal Grant program could almost not exist.

Differences beteen segments Stakeholders also noted differences between California’s postsecondary segments in terms of institution resources, though some of these disparities are unlikely to be addressed by changes to financial aid policy. Within the private nonprofit segment, institution representatives reported that the institutions with the most financial resources can afford to meet the full need of all students with institution grants. These institutions also tend to be the ones with the most highly selective admissions, and some maintain a need-blind policy of admitting students regardless of financial need. At the same time, they acknowledged that most private nonprofit institutions are not in such a fortunate position and that many cannot meet students’ full need with grants.

Representatives of private nonprofit institutions also stressed the philosophy of state aid programs treating public and private institutions equally, perhaps even establishing a single grant amount regardless of institution segment. They argued that students should be able to choose institutions based on what fits their needs and preferences rather than by the amount of aid the institutions are able to offer them.

Participants also pointed to differences among California’s three public segments, too. California’s community colleges have far fewer dollars per student to administer financial aid programs than other public institutions, spending only $40 per student, compared with $165 per 2 student at UC and $77 per student at CSU. Community college staff contended that even with the economy of scale of serving a large student population, this level of funding is inadequate for the demand. Staff feel they lack the resources to even inform students about important financial aid opportunities such as the alternate September aid cycle for those who missed the March 2 deadline (see Timing) and the recently established Full-Time Student Success Grants. Nor do community college financial aid offices have the resources to adequately assist students with their applications. For students who do receive aid, financial aid offices sometimes cannot deliver it on time. One representative referred to research describing how many needy community college students missed out on Pell grants due to problems with the federal aid application and verification process that might have been avoided had the colleges been able to provide more +*!Ĩ+*Ĩ+*!Ǝ//%/0* !Ǝ0+Ǝ/01 !*0/čƎ *+0$!.Ǝ,+%*0!3 Ǝ0+Ǝ.!/!. $Ǝ/$+3%*#Ǝ0$0Ǝ"0!.Ǝ +1*0%*# "+.Ǝ"! !.(ĎƎ/00!ĎƎ* Ǝ%*/0%010%+*Ǝ% ĎƎ +))1*%05Ǝ +((!#!/Ǝ.!Ǝ)+.!Ǝ!4,!*/%2!Ǝ0+Ǝ00!* ĎƎ+*ƏƎ2!.#!ĎƎ0$*Ǝ Ǝ+.ƎƎ%*/0%010%+*/čûƏ

Report to the Legislature on Increases in Capacity and Participation for Student Financial Aid in California Community Colleges for 2006-07 and 2007-08 Financial Aid Facts at California Community Colleges 3 After the FAFSA: How Red Tape Can Prevent Eligible Students from Receiving Financial Aid

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

E GAN DEIE SSE

Much of the input we heard from colleges and counselors was related in one way or another to CSAC’s technology. In several different meetings school officials emphasized the frustration of having to get into the CSAC WebGrants system and then having to enter data nlly rather than through more efficient data uploads. One segment estimated that at least one full-time staff person at every college was dedicated solely to dealing with CSAC administrative issues.

Students, also, struggle with the technology. Of the more than 30,000 phone calls that CSAC received between November 1, 2017, and the end of February, 40 percent were about password reset and problems getting into the WebGrants system (see attached data from CSAC), which we understand does not work reliably with some common web browsers.

From our meetings with CSAC staff, our understanding is that the process has already begun to update CSAC’s technology. That update that is sorely needed. A data system that allows for changes to be made more easily, and for data to be checked for accuracy in real time, will certainly reduce the need for manual entry by either CSAC or school officials. Incorporating the possible consolidation or simplification of programs into the modernization plan could facilitate both efforts.

With newer technology coming, now is the the perfect time to examine each task and process to determine whether there is a way to eliminate the need for the process (rather than just replicating current processes into a new system). The best system would build off of the FAFSA and not require students to create separate accounts with CSAC at all, except for in situations such as Dreamers. Only after exploring whether there are ways to eliminate processes should CSAC attempt to implement current processes using the new technology.

Further, in building and budgeting for the updated system, consider the programming needs of the schools and colleges that interact with CSAC. Include the lead time and resources to provide colleges with updates to their own data management software, so they can interact efficiently with CSAC.

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

Proided by CSAC

Call Center Statistics from October 1 1 through February 1

The Call Center received 30,062 calls from November 1, 2017 through February 28, 2018. Our Shortel reports break the calls down by the 11 queues listed below. The most popular queues are Password Reset and Cal Grants—English accounting for approximately 80 percent of our calls. Shortel does not provide information on the types of calls received under each queue.

Our staff report weekly on the top types of calls they are receiving. Based on those reports, here are the top reasons students and parents call when they select the option for the top two queues.

Reasons for Cal Grant English calls

● Reasons for Disqualification ● Claiming Cal Grant award ● How to remove hold from account

Reasons for Tech Help Desk calls

● Password Reset (students forgot password, browser issues, inactive accounts) ● Cannot access WebGrants for Students (incompatible browser)

Noember 1 1 February 1 ueue Calls of otal Password Reset 11,819 39.3% Cal Grants English 12,563 41.8% Cal Grants Spanish 243 0.8% Dream Act English 2,251 7.5% Dream Act Spanish 189 0.6% Chafee Spanish 1 0.0% Chafee English 1,344 4.5% APLE English 506 1.7% APLE Spanish 5 0.0% MCS English 1,127 3.7% MCS Spanish 14 0.0% otal Calls 1

CSAC started using the language line in December 2017. These are the latest stats from February 2018. We used the Language Line service to respond to 76 calls

● 1.3% Arabic (1 call) ● 1.3% ietnamese (1 call) ● 97.4% Spanish (74 calls)

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

APPENDIX Analysis of Administratie Steps

CSAC CA GAN AND COEGE FINANCIA AID POCESS

O A O EN Student Files FAFSA and submits to Central Online or by paper ● Oct 1 to Mar 2. Processing System (CPS). Requires to CPS ● Oct 1 to Sep 2 for FSA ID or paper signature. C2 Competitive. ● No deadline and no AB 540 AB 540 students complete the Online to GPA for Renewal. student California Dream Act Application WebGrants or paper ● CADA is available (CADA) and submits to CSAC. to CSAC after an 1.

CPS Sends Student Aid Report (SAR) to Email or paper ● 1-3 days if online. student. Lists FAFSA data, EFC, ● 3-5 days if by paper erification selection, Pell Grant and and has email. Loan eligibility, and if EFC not ● 3 weeks if by paper calculated due to missing data. and no email.

CPS Sends Institutional Student Information Electronic file 1-3 days after FAFSA Record (ISIR) to colleges. ee ollee submitted. oe

CSAC POCESS O A O EN CPS Sends ISIR to CSAC if CA address or Electronic file 1-3 days after FAFSA CA college listed. submitted CSAC Loads ISIR data into Grant Delivery GDS Oct; daily System (GDS). CSAC Loads CADA data into GDS; runs eyed in WebGrants an; daily CADA process to calculate EFC; or online selects students for verification. CSAC For CADA, sends California ISIR (CA WebGrants 1-3 days after CADA ISIR) to colleges. submitted; daily High School Sends GPA data to CSAC for eyed in WebGrants Begins May of junior graduating seniors. Encouraged to or electronic file or year until Mar 2 include seniors graduated one year paper out. CSAC Sends GPA Accepted/Rejected Report WebGrants After GPA reported to HS. High School Works GPA Rejected Report, makes eyed in WebGrants After GPA Accept/Reject corrections and resubmits to CSAC. or electronic file or Report paper College Can send GPA erification data to eyed in WebGrants Prior to Mar 2; CSAC for their students. 3 GPA Types or electronic file or CC has second cycle Reestablished, Community College, paper prior to Sep 2. College

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

College Updates College Cost Estimate on eyed in WebGrants Oct, prior to CSAC WebGrants. Awarding process CSAC Matches ISIR and CA ISIR with GPA by eyed in WebGrants Oct; daily using demographics since GPA does or electronic file, not have SSN. GDS CSAC After ISIR (and CA ISIR) and GPA GDS Oct to Mar; matched, creates FA record on GDS Oct to Sep for C2 and begins Cal Grant Awarding Competitive; ongoing process. Middle Class Scholarship process until Dec of (MCS), Cal Grant C, and Renewal following year Grants do not require GPA. CSAC CSAC Cal Grant Awards GDS Oct 1; daily E1 High School Entitlement Mar 2 E2 Community College Transfer Entitlement Mar 2 C1 Competitive Mar 2 C Cal Grant C Mar 2 C2 Competitive Sept 2 MCS Middle Class Scholarship Mar 2 oe ele o CSAC Application period opens, run E1 GDS, WebGrants Oct 1; daily Entitlement award cycle CSAC Reviews for New Cal Grant eligibility GDS Oct 1; daily from ISIR and GPA including ● US Citizen/eligible noncitizen ● Selective Service ● Not in default on Title I loan or owe refund ● CA resident ● No prior bachelor’s degree ● Enrolled in an eligible program ● Income and asset ceilings ● Financial need ● GPA

CSAC Reviews CADA Cal Grant eligibility GDS an 1 after CADA is similar to regular process using CADA processed; daily data and CA ISIR. CSAC Sends California Aid Report (CAR) to Email Oct; 1-3 days after E1 student, sends E1 preliminary Cal Grant cycle; daily notice if awarded, includes eligibility for Pell Grant. CSAC Notifies college of Cal Grant Award on WebGrants Cal Grant Roster Cal Grant Roster. Once awarded, no an for E1 longer evaluates subsequent ISIRs for Apr for E2 any changes to FAFSA. Apr for MCS May for C un for C1 ul for Renewals Oct for C2 CSAC Notifies student they must select Email Feb college.

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

Student Reports changes through WebGrants WebGrants or paper Feb; daily or paper forms. CSAC Processes changes from college as a GDS; eyed in Feb; daily result of the college financial aid and WebGrants or verification process from Grant electronic file Change Roster or paper. CSAC Notifies colleges and students of WebGrants Feb; daily changes to Cal Grant Award from college financial aid process. CSAC Mar 2 Application closes; Run E2 GDS Mar 2 Transfer Entitlement cycle. CSAC Reviews for E2 Transfer Entitlement GDS Mar eligibility from ISIR including ● US Citizen/eligible noncitizen ● Selective Service ● Not in default on Title I loan or owe refund ● CA resident ● No prior bachelor’s degree ● Enrolled in an eligible program ● Income and asset ceilings ● Financial need ● GPA

CSAC Sends G-6 Transfer Entitlement Forms Mail paper Mar to E2 students. CSAC Mar 2 MCS Application closes; Run GDS Mar MCS award process. Reviews MCS students for eligibility, including ● Attending CSU or UC ● Income and asset ceilings

CSAC Sends MCS award notices to students WebGrants Mar and college. Student Returns G-6 Transfer Entitlement Form Mail paper Apr, daily to CSAC. CSAC eys G-6 Transfer Entitlement forms to GDS Apr, daily review and makes E2 awards ● Graduated from CA High School after une 30, 2000 and were CA resident when they graduated from HS ● Transferring from CC to 4-year university with no break in attendance

CSAC Sends E2 Transfer Entitlement Award WebGrants Apr notices to students and college CSAC Run C1 Competitive Scoring Matrix. GDS May Run C1 award cycle. Reviews for C1 eligibility from ISIR and GPA including ● US Citizen/eligible noncitizen

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

● Selective Service ● Not in default on Title I loan or owe refund ● CA resident ● No prior bachelor’s degree ● Enrolled in an eligible program ● Income and asset ceilings ● Financial need ● GPA

CSAC Sends C1 Competitive Award notices WebGrants May to students and colleges. CSAC Cal Grant C cycle begins, notifies Mail paper May students of possible eligibility, sends student Cal Grant C Supplement Form. Student Returns Cal Grant C Supplement Form Mail paper May to CSAC. CSAC eys Cal Grant C Supplement and GDS May makes awards. CSAC Sends Cal Grant C notices to students WebGrants May and college. CSAC Notifies student to confirm HS Email May graduation Student Confirms High School graduation. WebGrants for un Students High School Confirms High School graduation. eyed in WebGrants un or electronic file CSAC Confirms HS graduation if not reported With CDE un with CA Department of Education (CDE). CSAC eys Cal C Supplement, runs cycle, GDS, WebGrants un notifies students and colleges of Cal Grant C Award. Student Sends form to CSAC if awarded Cal Paper form un Grant and transferring to eligible Cal Grant college. CSAC Renewal Cal Grant cycle begins. GDS ul; weekly Reviews for Renewal eligibility including ● CA resident ● Have at least 10% remaining eligibility ● Have valid transaction for each term of the prior year

CSAC Send Renewal Cal Grant notices to WebGrants ul; weekly students and colleges. CSAC Send Fall Advance to college, 95% of EFT or paper check Aug prior Fall reconciliation. CSAC Process Cal Grant Roster data from GDS After data is submitted; college. daily

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

CSAC Process Payment Codes from college. GDS After data is submitted; Once payment and adjustment codes daily are accepted, Payment Status code will reflect AP (Accepted Payment) or AA (Accepted Adjustment). CSAC Process Payment Cycle. Over GDS Weekend process weekend, AP and AA will change to RP (Reconciled Payment) or RA (Reconciled Adjustment). CSAC Send Monthly Payment Activity Report GDS, WebGrants Aug and monthly to College. process CSAC If supplemental funds needed, send EFT or paper check Aug, after payment Supplemental Payment to college. cycle, weekly CSAC C2 Competitive CC application closes. GDS Sep 2 CSAC Receives enrollment file and GPA file Electronic, GDS Sep from Community College. CSAC C2 Competitive award cycle run. Send GDS, WebGrants Oct C2 award notice to students and Community College. CSAC Notifies colleges of year end and Email by memos Sep deadline to report payments for prior award year. CSAC New award year application period GDS, WebGrants Oct 1; daily opens; first E1 awards made; first E1 notices sent; E1 runs weekly until next year December. CSAC Notifies colleges payment deadline, Email by memos Oct review year end reconciliation for prior award year. CSAC Notifies students when Cal Grant A Email Nov Reserve is coming to end. CSAC GPA collection begins for new award GDS Nov year. CSAC End of year closeout for prior year, GDS, Paper with Dec notifies colleges of final invoice if invoice schools pay more than was accepted through reconciliation; conclude Entitlement and Renewal cycle. CSAC Sends invoices to colleges, with Paper invoice an payments due by anuary. CSAC Final closeout activities. GDS Feb

COEGE POCESS O A O EN College Loads ISIR and CA ISIR data into their Electronic file to an 1, after FAM system computer system. college Financial Aid is updated; daily oe ollee o no e no Management (FAM) ee e o oe system e n nonl ole College Sends student information regarding Email After FAM updated; FAFSA and CADA receipt and next daily steps.

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

College Reviews for new Cal Grant Eligibility College FAM and After FAM updated, and requirements in addition to other WebGrants CA ISIR received, and federal requirements Cal Grant Roster ● CA Resident or AB 540 eligible available; daily ● US Citizen or eligible non-citizen or AB 540 eligible Cal Grant Rosters ● Selective Service for males an for E1 ● Not have earned a bachelor’s Apr for E2 degree Apr for MCS ● Not be in grant repayment or in May for C un for C1 default on a student loan ul for Renewals ● Not be incarcerated Oct for C2 ● Enrolled at least half-time ● Maintain Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) ● Has financial need ● Meets Income and Asset requirements ● If Transfer Entitlement Award, meets all requirements o Graduated from CA High School after une 30, 2000 and were CA resident when they graduated from HS o Transferring from CCC to 4-year university with no break in attendance

College Reviews CADA Cal Grant students for College FAM and an 1, after FAM eligibility requirements and those WebGrants updated, CA ISIR selected for erification including received, and Cal Grant ● IRS Tax Transcripts Roster available; daily ● Proof of income if IRS Tax return not filed ● Enrollment in eligible course of study ● Enrollment status

UC and CSU Reviews MCS students for eligibility, WebGrants and FAM Apr, after FAM including updated, CA ISIR ● Income and assets below ceilings received, and Cal Grant ● Are receiving less than 40% of Roster available; daily their mandatory statewide fees in federal or institutional aid

College Reviews Cal Grant C Roster for WebGrants and FAM May, after FAM updated, eligibility including and CA ISIR received, ● Enrolled in vocational, and Cal Grant Roster occupational, or technical program available; daily

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

College Notifies students what documents and Email Mar, after FAM updated; other requirements are needed for daily federal and state aid. Student Submits college’s request for College FAM, Email, Mar, after FAM updated; documents and other requirements. mail, in person, daily and/or faxes. College Reviews documents and other College FAM Mar, after FAM updated; requirements from student for daily acceptability. College Sends FAFSA corrections to CPS. College FAM, Mar, after FAM updated; (Same process as FAFSA; CPS will electronic file to CPS daily send student SAR and college ISIR). College Loads correction ISIR, review results College FAM Mar, after FAM updated, for accuracy, request documents to after correction ISIR resolve conflicting data. Reiterative received; daily process until no changes are required. College Report corrections to CSAC on Grant eyed in WebGrants Apr, after ISIR Record Change Screen or paper (G-21 or paper corrections and Cal Form). Grant Roster is received; daily College Report Education Level (EL) to CSAC. eyed inn Apri, after ISIR and Cal EL 1 1 29 units WebGrants or Grant Roster is received; EL 2 30 59 units electronic file daily EL 3 60 89 units EL 4 90 120 units College Reviews financial aid award and COA College FAM Apr, after FAM updated; components including living and daily enrollment status, EFC and Financial Need. College Reviews and updates Funds College FAM, Apr, after FAM updated; Management for awards, coordinates federal and state daily funds with institutional, federal, and systems (COD, G-5, state sources with Business Office WebGrants) College Packages aid according to College FAM Apr, after FAM updated; institutional, federal and state policies. daily Some colleges can send preliminary award letters prior to verification completion. College Notifies students of awards with Email or college Apr, after FAM updated; preliminary or official Award Letter. portal daily. Some colleges can send early award letters. College Adjusts award packages new awards Email or college Apr, after FAM updated; or eligibility changes and notifies portal daily student. Cannot receive more than 1 award restricted to tuition and fees. College Reviews for Renewal Cal Grant College FAM and ul, after FAM updated, Eligibility in addition to other federal WebGrants ISIR and CA ISIR requirements received, and Cal Grant ● CA resident Roster available; daily ● Attend at least half-time ● Meet SAP

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

● Meet income and asset thresholds ● Meet financial need requirements ● Meet minimum award need criteria ● Have at least 10% remaining eligibility ● Have valid transaction for each term of the prior year

College Transmits data to Common Origination College FAM Summer; daily and Disbursement (COD) system for electronic file to federal Pell Grant and Student Loan COD funding COD and Processes COD data and updates COD electronic files 1-2 days; daily G-5 COD and makes funds available to college FAM through G-5 federal payment system. College Financial Aid and Business Office COD, G-5, and Prior to Fall term; daily review COD and G-5 system for college FAM federal funding. College Perform monthly reconciliation for COD and college Aug; monthly federal aid programs. FAM College Receives Cal Grant Fall Advance, 95% EFT to college bank Aug; monitor interest of prior Fall reconciliation. Deposit account or paper earnings funds in interest bearing account and check monitor interest to return to CSAC. College Makes Cal Grant and financial aid Applies tuition fee Beginning of Fall term; disbursements to students. amounts, disburses weekly refunds to students College Reports Cal Grant Payment Activity to eyed in WebGrants Aug; weekly report payments and obtain additional or electronic file Cal Grant funds. College Reviews Accept/Reject Payment eyed in WebGrants Aug; weekly reports. If rejected, update and or electronic file transmit corrections, and monitor for Accept/Reject reports. College Adjusts amounts for students not eyed in WebGrants Aug, weekly attending full-time, prorates award and or electronic file adjust financial aid packages. FT Full Time (12 or more units) TT Three quarter Time (9 11 units) HT Half Time (6 8 units) College Reviews Monthly Payment Activity eyed in WebGrants Aug, monthly Report for reconciliation. or electronic file College Monitor student awards for any FAM, COD, eyed in Aug, weekly changes including withdraw and WebGrants calculate return funds for federal and state aid. Community Sends enrollment data and GPA data Electronic file in Sep College for C2 Competitive cycle. WebGrants College Works with US Department of ED and FAM According to ED system Education (ED) and FAM vendors to endors update calendar for new prepare for new aid year cycle.

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

award year and FAFSA on Oct 1. College Works to complete all roster payment eyed in WebGrants Prior to Sep 30 deadline adjustments and corrections prior to or electronic file September 30 for prior award year. College Works to close out reconciliation for Paper check to 30 days after invoice prior award year. Sends check invoice CSAC amount to CSAC if required. College Calculates earned interest and sends Paper check to Mar 1 check to CSAC for prior award year. CSAC

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

CAFEE GAN POCESS

O A O EN Student Files FAFSA and submits to Central Online or by paper ● Oct 1, no deadline. Processing System (CPS). Requires to CPS FSA ID or paper signature.

AB 540 AB 540 students complete the Online in WebGrants ● CADA is available student California Dream Act Application or paper to CSAC after an 1. (CADA) and submits to CSAC.

Same process as Cal Grant and College process Student Submits Chafee Grant Application to Online in WebGrants CSAC. Renewals do not need a or paper subsequent Chafee Grant Application. CSAC Reviews Chafee Grant eligibility GDS After Chafee Grant including Application received ● CA Resident ● Financial Need

Priority awarding criteria ● Paid Renewal students not reached 23 years as of uly 1 ● New and non-paid renewal students who will be 22 years as of uly 1 ● New and non-paid renewal students who have dependents ● New and non-paid renewal students who have an unmet need of $5,000 or more ● New and non-paid renewal students who have unmet need of less than $5,000.

CSAC erifies Foster outh status with CA Electronic file After Chafee Grant Dept. of Social Services (CDSS) Application is received Student If CDSS does not verify Foster outh Paper form After review with CDSS status, completes Foster Care and no match Eligibility Certification Form to get certified by county. Sends to CSAC CSAC Processes Foster Care Eligibility eyed in WebGrants After Foster Care Certification Form Eligibility Form received CSAC Reviews for Eligibility, awards student, GDS, email to After all above steps notifies student student completed CSAC Sends funds to college After award is made College Reviews for Eligibility After notification of ● Enrolled at least half-time award is received ● Enrolled in a program at least one academic year long ● Maintain SAP

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

● Demonstrate Financial Need

May need to adjust previously awarded financial aid. College Disburses Chafee Grant to student, FAM After funds are received. reports payment to CSAC. College Reports Chafee payment to CSAC. WebGrants After disbursement is made.

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

1.1 APPENDIX Summary and istory of California Financial Aid Programs

The following is general summary of the California financial aid programs administered by the California Student Aid Commission as of Fall 2017. The first section provides a review of all Cal Grant Programs, the largest financial aid program in the state; the second section covers all other state grant or scholarship programs; the final section provides information on loan assumption programs. Attachment Attachment CAL GRANT PROGRAMS

Cal Grant Awards seek to make postsecondary undergraduate education affordable for qualified students in California. ualifying institutions where students may receive awards include both public, private non-profit, and private-for profit institutions in California. There are three main categories of Cal Grant Awards, Cal Grants A, B, and C. Cal Grants A and B are broken down into two subcategories, Entitlement and Competitive Awards. Students may qualify for Cal Grant A or Cal Grant B, depending on family income and their academic performance. Students pursuing postsecondary technical, vocational or career education may be eligible for Cal Grant C.

In general, aid applicants may only be considered for Cal Grant Entitlement Awards within one year of their high school graduation date unless they are transferring to 4-year postsecondary program from a California Community College (CCC). Otherwise, they may be considered for competitive awards. Program details and the legislative history for each type of Cal Grant Entitlement Award, A and B, are presented below, followed by the program details and legislative history for Cal Grant Competitive Awards, A and B, followed by the details and history for Cal Grant C.

CAL GRANT A ENTITLEMENT AWARDS

Authoriing legislation (main) 2000 Senate Bill No. 1644 Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-asconcellos Cal Grant Act Program purpose and description Cal Grant A Awards seek to make postsecondary education at California 4-year postsecondary institutions affordable for qualified students. Cal Grant A awards may be renewed for a total of the equivalent of four years of full-time attendance in an undergraduate program provided that minimum financial need continues to exist. However, Cal Grant A Entitlement Awards are only available to recent high school graduates or students who are transferring to a 4-year institution from a CCC. Cal Grant A Entitlement Awards may be used for tuition or student fees, or both, by students pursuing a postsecondary program that is not less than two academic years. Award amounts vary based on institution type. Students who qualify for a Cal Grant A Entitlement Award but choose to first attend a CCC and then transfer to a four-year college in California may put their award on reserve. CCC students who were not eligible for an award upon high school graduation but who attend a CCC and transfer to a qualifying 4-year institution may be eligible for a transfer entitlement award.(Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-asconcellos Cal Grant Act, 2000).

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

Institutional euirements

1.1 ualifying institutions for Cal Grant A Awards are not CCCs that have a federal student loan Cohort Default Rate (CDR) below 15.5 percent and a graduation rate above 30 percent and must meet one of the following criteria

● Is a California private or independent postsecondary educational institution that participates in the Pell Grant Program and in at least two of the following federal student aid programs a) Federal Work-Study Program. b) Federal Stafford Loan Program. Attachment Attachment c) Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program.

● Is a nonprofit institution headquartered and operating in California that certifies to the California Student Aid Commission (CSAC) that a) 10 percent of the institution’s operating budget, as demonstrated in an audited financial statement, is expended for purposes of institutionally funded student financial aid in the form of grants, b) demonstrates to CSAC that it has the administrative capacity to administer the funds, c) is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, and d) meets any other state-required criteria adopted by regulation by CSAC in consultation with the California Department of 1 Finance. ● A California public postsecondary educational institution. (Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-asconcellos Cal Grant Act, 2000) Eligibility determination and aard process Eligibility for a Cal Grant A is determined following two standards general Cal Grant eligibility requirements and Entitlement specific requirements. To meet general Cal Grant requirements, applicants must

2 ● Be a California Resident or AB 540 eligible. ● Be a U.S. Citizen or eligible non-citizen ● If male, have met Selective Service Requirements. ● Attend a Cal Grant eligible school. ● Have not earned a bachelor’s degree. ● Not be in grant repayment or in default on a student loan. ● Not be incarcerated. ● Be enrolled at least half-time to receive payment. ● Maintain satisfactory academic progress to receive payment.

Specific Cal Grant A requirements

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

● Student has demonstrated financial need. ● Student has attained a high school GPA of at least 3.0. (only applies to recent high school graduates) 3 1.1 ● The student’s household has an income and asset level not to exceed the Cal Grant A level set forth by CSAC. ● Student must be enrolled in an undergraduate program that no less than two years. A student enrolled in a program at a California Community College that is two years or less who meets Cal Grant A eligibility standards may have their award held in reserve for up to two years until he or she attends a qualifying institution.

Specific Cal Grant Entitlement Award Requirements for recent high school graduates Students meeting the above requirements who attend a qualifying institution are guaranteed a Cal Grant A award if they apply for aid by March 2 of their senior year in high school or the year following graduation. Attachment Specific Cal Grant Entitlement Award Requirements for transfer students Students who were not previously awarded a Cal Grant but are enrolled in a CCC and are matriculating to a qualifying baccalaureate program are guaranteed a Cal Grant A award as long as they meet the specific Cal Grant A requirements above, are younger than 28 years of age and have a verified community college GPA of 2.40 on a minimum of 24 semester units or the equivalent.

In order to be awarded a Cal Grant A Entitlement Award a student must complete three steps

1. Submit a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) or CA Dream Act Application 2. Submit a high school (or community college) GPA to CSAC 3. Create a WebGrants for Students account. (Cal Grant Programs, 2012)

Originating legislation 2000 Senate Bill No. 1644 Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-asconcellos Cal Grant Act Original legislatie intent To expand the existing, competitive Cal Grant Program through a two-tiered approach that would guarantee a grant to graduating high school seniors and specified transfer students.

Narratie history from original to current Before the sweeping reforms made to Cal Grants in 2000, there were no comprehensive entitlement-based awards in California. Previous legislation established subsistence grants which helped create Cal Grant B as we know it today, but none of the programs established previously guaranteed funding to all students who met the academic and financial requirements (The State Scholarship Subsistence Act 1967). Funding and amount allocation is decided by the annual budget act, where funds are appropriated based on a line item in the yearly budget. The current iteration of this funding can be found in AB No. 97 (Budget Act of 2017, 2017). There have been additional legislative revisions to this and other Cal Grant programs which are summarized in the Appendix, table 4.

CAL GRANT B ENTITLEMENT AWARDS

3 3

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

1.1 Authoriing legislation (main) 2000 Senate Bill No. 1644 Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-asconcellos Cal Grant Act Program purpose and description Cal Grant B Awards assist qualifying low-income students with the cost of a 4-year, 2-year or vocational degree or certificate at a California postsecondary institution. Cal Grant B awards may be renewed for a total of the equivalent of four years of full-time attendance in an undergraduate program provided that minimum financial need continues to exist. However, Cal Grant B Entitlement Awards are only available to recent high school graduates or students who are transferring to a 4-year institution from a CCC. Cal Grant B Entitlement Award recipients receive a stipend for access costs for the first year in which

Attachment Attachment they qualify, regardless of institution type. After completing their first year of college, they receive the access stipend as well as tuition and fee assistance at any qualifying institution, assuming they continue to meet the financial requirements. (Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-asconcellos Cal Grant Act, 2000). Institutional euirements

ualifying institutions for Cal Grant B Awards are have a federal student loan Cohort Default Rate (CDR) below 15.5 percent and a graduation rate above 30 percent and must meet one of the following criteria

● Is a California private or independent postsecondary educational institution that participates in the Pell Grant Program and in at least two of the following federal student aid programs d) Federal Work-Study Program. e) Federal Stafford Loan Program. f) Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program.

● Is a nonprofit institution headquartered and operating in California that certifies to the California Student Aid Commission (CSAC) that a) 10 percent of the institution’s operating budget, as demonstrated in an audited financial statement, is expended for purposes of institutionally funded student financial aid in the form of grants, b) demonstrates to CSAC that it has the administrative capacity to administer the funds, c) is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, and d) meets any other state-required criteria adopted by regulation by CSAC in consultation with the California Department of Finance. ● A California public postsecondary educational institution. (Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-asconcellos Cal Grant Act, 2000) Eligibility determination and aard process Eligibility for a Cal Grant A or B Entitlement Award is determined following two standards general Cal Grant eligibility requirements and Entitlement specific requirements. To meet general Cal Grant requirements, applicants must

4 ● Be a California Resident or AB 540 eligible. ● Be a U.S. Citizen or eligible non-citizen

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

● If male, have met Selective Service Requirements. ● Attend a Cal Grant eligible school.

1.1 ● Have not earned a bachelor’s degree. ● Not be in grant repayment or in default on a student loan. ● Not be incarcerated. ● Be enrolled at least half-time to receive payment. ● Maintain satisfactory academic progress to receive payment.

Specific Cal Grant B requirements Attachment Attachment ● Student has demonstrated financial need ● Attained a high school GPA of at least 2.0 (only applies to recent high school graduates) 5 ● The student’s household has an income and asset level not to exceed the Cal Grant B level set forth by CSAC ● Student is a current high school senior or prior year high school graduate.

Specific Cal Grant Entitlement Award Requirements for transfer students Students who were not previously awarded a Cal Grant but are enrolled in a CCC and are matriculating to a qualifying baccalaureate program are guaranteed a Cal Grant B award as long as they meet the specific Cal Grant B requirements above, are younger than 28 years of age and have a verified community college GPA of 2.40 on a minimum of 24 semester units or the equivalent.

In order to be awarded a Cal Grant B Entitlement Award a student must complete three steps

4. Submit a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) or CA Dream Act Application 5. Submit a high school GPA to CSAC 6. Create a WebGrants for Students account. (Cal Grant Programs, 2012)

Originating legislation 1967 Senate Bill No. 160 The State Scholarship Subsistence Act (This act is considered the precursor to Cal Grant B.) Original legislatie intent To create a program that provides grants to cover the cost of books and room and board, for low-income students who are eligible to enroll in both private and public postsecondary institutions (The State Scholarship Subsistence Act, 1967). Narratie history from original to current Before the sweeping reforms made to Cal Grants in 2000, there were no comprehensive entitlement-based awards in California. Previous legislation established subsistence grants which helped create Cal Grant B as we know it today, but none of the programs established previously

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

guaranteed funding to all students who met the academic and financial requirements (The State Scholarship Subsistence Act 1967) . In 2014, legislation was passed to increase the maximum amount awarded for all Cal Grant B awards, to better take into account the increase in cost of living in California (2014). Funding and 1.1 amount allocation is decided by the annual budget act, where funds are appropriated based on a line item in the yearly budget. The current iteration of this funding can be found in AB No. 97 (Budget Act of 2017, 2017). There have been additional legislative revisions to this and other Cal Grant programs which are summarized in the Appendix, table 4.

CAL GRANT A COMPETITIE AWARDS

Attachment Attachment

Authoriing legislation (main) 2000 Senate Bill No. 1644 Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-asconcellos Cal Grant Act Program purpose and description Cal Grant Competitive Awards were created to provide financial assistance to students who are not eligible for entitlement awards, e.g., students in their third year at a qualifying institution. Given that a limited quantity of awards are available (originally, the legislation established a total 22,500 competitive awards for both Cal Grants A and B, but as of 2015-16, the total is 25,750 awards), 50 percent of available awards are available to all California residents attending a postsecondary institution in California, including community college students. The other 50 percent of available awards are reserved solely for residents who will be enrolled at a CCC. As with the Entitlement Awards, the Competitive Awards program provides both Cal Grant A and B awards, but since Cal Grant A awards are not used at CCCs, up to only 12,875 awards could be awarded as Cal Grant A. Cal Grant A Competitive Awards may be used to cover the same types of expenses as Cal Grant A Entitlement Awards. (Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-asconcellos Cal Grant Act, 2000). Eligibility determination and aard process To be eligible for Cal Grant A Competitive Awards, the applicant must not be currently awarded an Entitlement award and must meet general Cal Grant requirements. The student must also meet the specific requirements for Cal Grant A, excluding the requirement that they must be no more than one year removed from high school. Selection criteria were established to give special consideration to disadvantaged students, taking into consideration those financial, educational, cultural, language, home, community, environmental, and other conditions that hamper a students access to, and ability to persist in, postsecondary education programs. Due to the limited number of awards relative to qualifying applicants, California Dream Act applicants currently do not receive Cal Grant Competitive Awards. (Cal Grant Competitive Awards, 2012). Institutional euirements The same requirements for Cal Grant A Entitlement Awards apply to Competitive Awards.

Originating legislation 1955 Assembly Bill No. 1546 The Hegland-Shell-Donahoe and Donald Doyle Act Original legislatie intent This Act established competitive scholarships administered by the State. Students must demonstrate financial need and be approved by the State Scholarship Commission to receive one of the awards. In the original legislation grants were awarded to two individuals of each senatorial senate and assembly district ( 240 individual scholarships), as well as 400 at-large scholarships for the state. The intent of this original legislation was to increase the number of available scholarships each year (The Hegland, Shell, Donahoe, and Donald Doyle Act, 1955).

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

Narratie history from original to current The first time competitive state-based aid was recommended came in 1948 with the Strayer Committee Report on the Needs of California in Higher Education. This report proposed establishing competitive subsistence scholarships for individuals that demonstrated outstanding ability 1.1 and were actually in need of financial aid (Strayer, 1948). Seven years after this report was published the Hegland-Shell-Donahoe and Donald Doyle Act was passed, in 1955, creating a competitive scholarship that would cover tuition and fees, but not subsistence needs (i.e. living expenses)

(The Hegland, Shell, Donahoe, and Donald Doyle Act, 1955). In 2000, when the Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-asconcellos Cal Grant Act was passed it created the Competitive Cal Grant A B programs as they are known today. Like Entitlement Awards, funding and amount allocation is decided by the annual budget act, currently AB No. 97 (Budget Act of 2017, 2017). Attachment Attachment

CAL GRANT B COMPETITIE AWARDS

Authoriing legislation (main) 2000 Senate Bill No. 1644 Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-asconcellos Cal Grant Act Program purpose and description Cal Grant Competitive Awards were created to provide financial assistance to students who are not eligible for entitlement awards, e.g., students in their third year at a qualifying institution. Given that a limited quantity of awards are available (originally, the legislation established a total 22,500 competitive awards for both Cal Grants A and B, but as of 2015-16, the total is 25,750 awards), 50 percent of available awards are available to all California residents attending a postsecondary institution in California, including community college students. The other 50 percent of available awards are reserved solely for residents who will be enrolled at a CCC. As with the Entitlement Awards, the Competitive program provides both Cal Grant A and B awards but since at least half of awards are reserved for students enrolled at a CCC and Cal Grant A awards cannot be used there, most of the Competitive Awards are awarded as Cal Grant B. Cal Grant B Competitive Awards may be used to cover the same types of expenses as Cal Grant B Entitlement Awards. (Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-asconcellos Cal Grant Act, 2000). Eligibility determination and aard process To be eligible for Cal Grant Competitive Awards the applicant must not be currently awarded an Entitlement award and must meet general Cal Grant requirements. The student must also meet the specific requirements for Cal Grant B, excluding the requirement that they must be no more than one year removed from high school. Selection criteria were established to give special consideration to disadvantaged students, taking into consideration those financial, educational, cultural, language, home, community, environmental, and other conditions that hamper a students access to, and ability to persist in, postsecondary education programs. Due to the limited number of awards relative to qualifying applicants, California Dream Act applicants currently do not receive Cal Grant Competitive Awards.(Cal Grant Competitive Awards, 2012). Institutional euirements The same requirements for Cal Grant Entitlement Awards apply to Competitive Awards.

Originating legislation 1955 Assembly Bill No. 1546 The Hegland-Shell-Donahoe and Donald Doyle Act

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

Original legislatie intent This Act established competitive scholarships administered by the State. Students must demonstrate financial need and be approved by the State Scholarship Commission to receive one of the awards. In the original legislation grants were awarded to two individuals of each senatorial senate and 1.1 assembly district (240 individual scholarships), as well as 400 at-large scholarships for the state. The intent of this original legislation was to increase the number of available scholarships each year (The Hegland, Shell, Donahoe, and Donald Doyle Act, 1955). Narratie history from original to current The first time competitive state-based aid was recommended came in 1948 with the Strayer Committee Report on the Needs of California in Higher Education. This report proposed establishing competitive subsistence scholarships for individuals that demonstrated outstanding ability and were actually in need of financial aid (Strayer, 1948). Seven years after this report was published the Hegland-Shell-Donahoe and Donald Doyle Act was passed, Attachment Attachment in 1955, creating a competitive scholarship that would cover tuition and fees, but not subsistence needs (i.e. living expenses) (The Hegland, Shell, Donahoe, and Donald Doyle Act, 1955). In 2000, when the Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-asconcellos Cal Grant Act was passed it created the Competitive Cal Grant A B programs as they are known today. Like Entitlement Awards, funding and amount allocation is decided by the annual budget act, currently AB No. 97 (Budget Act of 2017, 2017). There have been additional legislative revisions to this and other Cal Grant programs which are summarized in the Appendix, table 4.

CAL GRANT C

Authoriing legislation (main) 2000 Senate Bill No. 1644 Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-asconcellos Cal Grant Act Program purpose and description Cal Grant C awards are to be used for occupational or technical training for a course of at least four months in duration and not to exceed two years. Grant money can be applied to tuition, fees and training-related costs. The total number of Cal Grant C awards is established in state law as the number awarded in the 2000-01 fiscal year, which was 7,761 awards (SB 1644, 2000).

Eligibility determination and aard process In addition to the general Cal Grant eligibility requirements, Cal Grant C applicants are recommended to submit their GPA, as this is a competitive scholarship, but there is no minimum GPA required.

Originating legislation 1972 Assembly Bill No. 1794 Original legislatie intent This legislation created the Occupational Education and Training Grant Program. This pilot program provided competitive scholarships for students interested in pursuing occupational education and training (1972). Narratie history from original to current In 1972, a pilot program was created with AB 1794 that established a fund to provide competitive scholarships for students pursuing occupational education and training. The original duration of this program was established to last until 1977 (1972). The Cal Grant C program was included in the 2000 legislation which determines the program structure as it exists today. In 2011, SB 451 was passed which requires CSAC to review every 5 years the eligible occupational and technical training programs for Cal Grant C. (SB 451, 2011) In 2014, SB 1028 amended the Unemployment Insurance Code, giving CSAC greater

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

discretion in the weight it gives to applicants with specified challenges. Funding and amount allocation is decided by the annual budget act, currently AB No. 97 (Budget Act of 2017, 2017). There have been additional legislative revisions to this and other Cal Grant programs which are summarized in the Appendix, table 4. 1.1

TIMELINE OF LEGISLATION AUTHORIING CAL GRANT PROGRAMS 1955-2015 Attachment Attachment

OTHER GRANT OR SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAMS

CALIFORNIA DREAM ACT

Authoriing legislation (main) 2011 Assembly Bill 130 California Dream Act

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

Program purpose and description While not a separate scholarship program, the California Dream Act established that a student who is not eligible to complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) due to their citizenship status in the United States can still apply for and be eligible for financial aid programs, 1.1 including the Cal Grant Entitlement Awards. (California Dream Act, 2011).

Eligibility determination In order to be eligible for exemption status a student must complete the Dream Act Application (CADAA) instead of the FAFSA. Once submitted the CADAA is then passed on to the colleges listed on the application so that the institution may award aid. The CADAA can also be used in lieu of a FAFSA application for students who wish to apply for Cal Grants and other state-based aid programs (California Dream Act FA for Parents and Students, 2017).

Attachment Attachment

Originating legislation 2001 Assembly Bill 540 Original legislatie intent Assembly Bill 540 amended the California Education Code to include section 68130.5. This section created the exemption of paying nonresident tuition for students and established the criteria a student must meet to be eligible for this exemption (California Assembly Bill 540, 2001). AB 540 also allows eligible non-citizens to apply for and receive Cal Grants, Chafee Grants, and the Middle Class Scholarship.

Narratie history from original to current Following Assembly Bill 540 in 2001, both Assembly Bill 130 and 131 were passed in 2011. Assembly Bill 130 established the California Dream Act as it is known currently, while Assembly Bill 131 established the administrative requirements of postsecondary institutions and CSAC (California Assembly Bill 131, 2011). In 2014 Assembly Bill 2000 amended the Education Code to broaden the scope of who may qualify to be exempt from nonresident tuition. Previously, students were exempt if they had attended high school in California for 3 or more years. Now, students are exempt if they fulfill the above requirement or earned credits in a California high school equivalent to three or more years of high school and attended at least three years of elementary or secondary education in California (California Assembly Bill 2000, 2014).

CALIFORNIA MIDDLE CLASS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

Authoriing legislation (main) 2013 Assembly Bill No. 94 Education finance higher education. Program purpose and description The Middle Class Scholarship Program provides scholarships to students enrolled in a California State University or the University of California whose annual household incomes and asset levels do not exceed $150,000 (as of 2015-16), and who do not qualify for Cal Grant awards. The income and asset ceiling is adjusted annually to reflect increases to the cost of living. In its first year, award amounts covered up to 40 percent of tuition and fees.

Eligibility determination and aard process To be eligible for the scholarship, students must meet the annual household income and household asset level requirements. The maximum annual household income and household asset level is $150,000 in the 2015-16 academic year, but the maximum income level and maximum household asset level will be adjusted yearly for awards issued starting in the 2016-17 academic year and in each subsequent year, according to adjustments in the cost of living. In addition to financial requirements, students must meet general eligibility requirements for Cal Grants under Section 69433.9 of

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

the California Education Code, which requires that applicants be citizens of the United States or noncitizens eligible for financial aid; not incarcerated; not in default on any student loans; a resident of California as of high school graduation; and a high school graduate or equivalent. To apply, students must complete a FAFSA and 1.1 maintain satisfactory academic progress (a 2.0 GPA), be enrolled at least part-time, and be pursuing their first bachelor’s degree or enrolled in professional teacher training at an institution approved by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. In addition to students enrolled at CSUs and UCs, students enrolled in upper-division coursework in baccalaureate programs at community colleges are also eligible.

The award amount a student receives is determined by their annual household income and the amount of any other financial aid they receive. For each $1000 the student’s household income exceeds $100,000, the percentage of tuition and fees covered by the scholarship decreases in increments of 0.6 percent to a minimum

Attachment Attachment of 10 percent of tuition and fees covered. The minimum award amount is $90 for full-time enrollment, if 10% of the student’s tuition and fees is less than $90. The program will be phased in over four years, with the maximum award amount in 2014-15 starting at 35 percent of the total scholarship amount the student would otherwise receive, and increasing to 50 percent in 2015-16 and 75 percent in 2016-17. Students may renew their award for the equivalent of four years of full-time attendance at their undergraduate program (or for community college students in baccalaureate programs, two years of upper-level coursework), though starting in 2016-17, the number of years that students will eligible for grants depends on the student’s education level within their program (California Education Code 700290.2, Article 22).

Originating legislation 2013 Assembly Bill No. 94 Education finance higher education Original legislatie intent The program aims to make higher education more affordable for middle-class California undergraduate students, who are not eligible for Cal Grants and are especially affected by rising tuition costs (California State Assembly Democratic Caucus, 2014).

Narratie history from original to current The Middle Class Scholarship Program was established by Assembly Bill No. 94 (2013) in 2013. Senate Bill No. 103 (2015) required that CSAL annually adjust the annual income ceilings to reflect changes in the cost of living. In 2017, Governor erry Brown initially proposed to phase out the Middle Class Scholarship in his proposed budget (Brown, 2017), but later signed the 2017-18 Budget Act (Budget Act of 2017, 2017) maintaining it.

CALIFORNIA CHAFEE GRANT

Authoriing legislation (main) H.R. 2873, or the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001 Program purpose and description The California Chafee Grant Program provides funds for youth who were in foster care between the ages of 16 and 18 to pursue education and training. Funding for the program comes from both the federal and state governments the federal government allots funds to each state based on the size of their foster youth population, and the state must match 20 percent of those funds. Federal funds allotted to states are made available for two years. States may also request additional funds, as well as release funds to be reallocated to other states if they determine that they will not spend their entire allocation. If states do not spend their entire allocation and do not release their funds to other states, they must return the unspent funds to the U.S. Treasury (Promoting Safe and

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

Stable Families Amendments of 2001, 2001). In California, the California Department of Social Services contracts with CSAC through an interagency agreement to administer the Chafee Grant program (California Department of Social Services, 2015). Although the program is not governed by higher education law, Chafee grants 1.1 must be coordinated with other financial aid so that the total aid amount provided to students does not exceed their total cost of attending (Cochrane and Szabo-ubitz, 2009).

Eligibility determination and aard process Eligibility for the program is determined by whether the student had been eligible for foster care between the ages of 16 and 18, and by their age when they apply. Foster youth age out of the foster care system when they turn 18. The Chafee Program, which includes Chafee Grants, is intended to provide services to former foster youth who have turned 18 but have not yet reached 21. However, students who have reached age 21 may stay eligible

Attachment Attachment for renewal until they reach age 23 if they are enrolled in postsecondary education or a training program, and are on track to complete their program (Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001, 2001). Students must also be enrolled at least half-time in an eligible college or career and technical school in a course of study at least one year long, and must maintain satisfactory academic progress (Chafee Grant Program Application, 2016).

To apply for a California Chafee grant, applicants must submit a FAFSA or a California Dream Act Application if they do not have a Social Security number. They must also submit a California Chafee Grant Application (California Chafee Grant for Foster outh, 2015).

Students receive up to $5000 a year for the cost of attendance, including tuition and fees, books, room and board, and other expenses, though the amount they receive may not exceed their cost of attendance (Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001, 2001).

Originating legislation H.R. 2873, or the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001 Original legislatie intent To assist foster youth aging out of the foster care system in their transition to self-sufficiency, through education, vocational training, health and financial services, and other supports.

Narratie history from original to current Chafee Grants were established under a federal bill, H.R. 2873, or the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001, which amended the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999. Section 477 of the Foster Care Independence Act is the ohn H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, which provides states with funding to assist foster youth aging out of the foster care system in their transition to self-sufficiency (Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, 1999). H.R. 2873 specifically amended the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 by making vouchers for postsecondary education and training available to youths aging out of foster care (Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001, 2001). In 2016 California passed AB 2506, requiring that new Chafee Grants could only be used at institutions that also met Cal Grant eligibility standards.

CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AWARD PROGRAM (CNG EAAP)

Authoriing legislation (main) 2009 Senate Bill No. 647 California National Guard Education Assistance Award Program

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

Program purpose and description The California National Guard Education Assistance Award Program provides educational assistance to members of the California National Guard. Members of the State Military Reserve and Naval Militia are also eligible. 1.1 Eligibility determination and aard process To be eligible to apply for the award, an individual must be a California resident (for over a year before applying), an active member of the National Guard, State Military Reserve, or Naval Militia who has served for at least two years, and be registered or enrolled at a Cal Grant-eligible postsecondary institution. In addition, the applicant must agree to use the award toward a postsecondary credential that they have not already attained, and must enroll in the equivalent of at least 3 academic units per semester (2009). To apply, applicants must fill out a FAFSA and submit an application to the Adjutant General, who commands the state’s National Guard. Awardees are selected on the basis of merit, not need The Adjutant General selects award

Attachment Attachment recipients based on both a consideration of the skills most needed by the National Guard and a consideration of the applicant’s ability, which is evaluated with reference to the applicant’s specific rank and occupation, an officer evaluation report, a recommendation from the applicant’s commander, any commendations received by the applicant, and an essay written by the applicant on the importance of education to him or her (2009).

CSAC issues award funding to recipients, and is then reimbursed by the Military Department through an interagency agreement. The number of awards each year is determined by the number authorized in the Budget Act, and cannot exceed 1000. The amounts of CNG EAAP awards are tied to the amounts of Cal Grant awards those attending CSUs or UCs are awarded the maximum amount of a Cal Grant A award, and those attending private institutions are awarded the maximum amount of a Cal Grant A award for a UC student. Those using the award for graduate study may be awarded up to the maximum amount for a Cal Grant A award plus $500 for materials such as textbooks, and those attending community colleges are awarded the maximum amount of a Cal Grant B award. The award amount may not cover more of the cost of the student’s education than the amount left over after other financial aid is accounted for. Students cannot receive both a Cal Grant and the CNG EAAP at the same time. The award may be renewed for each academic year for up to four years of full-time enrollment or however long the applicant would be eligible for a Cal grant (2009).

Originating legislation 2009 Senate Bill No. 647 California National Guard Education Assistance Award Program Original legislatie intent The program is intended to boost retention of National Guard members, particularly the most competent and capable members, as well as to encourage them to increase their capabilities by pursuing higher education (2009). More highly skilled members of the National Guard would contribute to a more skilled workforce in California in general, as National Guard members often hold civilian jobs. Higher retention rates would ultimately save money for the state of California, which must provide funding for each member of the National Guard, and would increase federal funding as well (2009).

Narratie history from original to current The legislation originating the program was a Senate bill, SB 647, introduced in 2009, with National Guard members able to apply starting anuary 1 of the 2009-10 academic year.

As written, the program is scheduled to sunset on uly 1, 2019. An analysis by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office examined the program’s effectiveness and recommended that the program be allowed to sunset, due to lack of participation and uncertain outcomes (Taylor, 2016).

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

CHILD DEELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM

1.1

Authoriing legislation (main) 2002 Assembly Bill No. 2811 Student financial aid Child Development Teacher and Supervisor Grant Program Program purpose and description The Child Development Teacher and Supervisor Grant Program provides grants to students at California public or private two- or four-year institutions who intend to obtain a permit to teach or supervise in the field of child care and development at a licensed children’s center (Cal. Education Code 69620-69628). Attachment Attachment

Eligibility determination and aard process Students are nominated to the program by a Child Development Grant Coordinator, who may be a faculty or staff member at the student’s postsecondary institution (Child Development Grant 2011-12 Nomination and Application Packet, 2011). Coordinators may nominate as many students at the institution as qualify. To be nominated to the program, a student must be enrolled in a course of study that leads to a Child Development Permit at the Teacher, Master Teacher, Site Supervisor, or Program Director levels. (Child Development Permits are issued by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing and authorize an individual to serve in child care and development programs as an Assistant, Associate, Master Teacher, Site Supervisor, or Program Director Child Development Permits, 2016.)

The grant program also includes contractual obligations for students after they have completed their course of study applicants must agree to work full time in a licensed child care center for one year for each year that they receive the grant and to provide CSAC with verifying documentation.

Funding for the program comes from federal funds made available through the Child Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (P.L. 97-35). Up to 100 grants are awarded each year, or as many as are possible given the amount of federal funds. For students at four-year institutions who are enrolled at least half-time, the grant amount is $2000 for each academic year, while for their counterparts at two-year institutions the grant amount is $1000. Students may renew their grants for up to one additional year (Cal. Education Code 69624).

Originating legislation 1997 Assembly Bill No. 957 Original legislatie intent The legislative intent is to attract students into the field of child care and development. Narratie history from original to current In 1997, via Assembly Bill No. 957, the Child Development Teacher and Supervisor Grant Program was established to replace the existing Child Development Teacher Loan Assumption program, which had been established in 1992. Although intended to attract students into the child care and development field, the loan assumption program suffered from low participation rates. CSAC, which sponsored AB 957, hoped that turning the loan assumption program into a grant program would attract more students into child care at about the same cost, as the grant program would provide awards in about the same amounts as the loans the previous program had assumed (1997).

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

The 1997 bill was written so that the program would sunset in 2002. Assembly Bill 2811 was enacted in 2002 to repeal the Child Development Teacher Loan Assumption program, extend the grant program indefinitely, and make several amendments to it (2002). However, beginning in 2017-18, the program will no longer 1.1 offer new awards (Child Development Grant Program, 2012).

LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL DEPENDENTS GRANT PROGRAM (LEPD)

Authoriing legislation (main) 1969 Assembly Bill No. 473

Attachment Attachment Program purpose and description The Law Enforcement Personnel Dependents Grant Program (LEPD) offers scholarships to the spouses and children of California law enforcement officers who have been killed or totally disabled as a result of external violence or physical force in the line of duty. California firefighters, as well as employees of the Department of Corrections and the Department of outh Authority in California, are included along with law enforcement officers.

Eligibility determination and aard process To be eligible to apply, the applicant must be enrolled as an undergraduate student in at least six units at a California two- or four-year postsecondary institution accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) (institutions that are candidates for accreditation by WASC also qualify) (Law Enforcement Personnel Dependents (LEPD) Grant Program Fact Sheet, 2006). In addition, the applicant must demonstrate financial need through the Student Aid Report generated by filling out a FAFSA form. To apply, applicants file an LEPD grant application and include documents to prove that they are eligible for the scholarship. These documents include the Student Aid Report; birth certificates, which are required for the children of law enforcement officers; and death certificates and other documentation necessary to show that the officer was killed or disabled by external violence or physical force in the performance of duty. Applicants must also prove, through findings of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board or other evidence, that the death or disability is compensable under Division 4.0 or 4.5 (starting with Section 6100) of the California Labor Code (Law Enforcement Personnel Dependents (LEPD) Grant Program Fact Sheet, 2006).

The scholarship amount that a student receives under the LEPD matches the amount that a student would receive for a Cal Grant scholarship. In addition, LEPD grant recipients are not precluded from receiving Cal Grants (Cal. Labor Code 4709).

Originating legislation 1969 Assembly Bill No. 473 Original legislatie intent To provide workmen’s compensation to the spouses and dependents of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. Narratie history from original to current Assembly Bill 473 added section 4709 to the California Labor Code in 1969 (1969).

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

LOAN ASSUMPTION PROGRAMS

1.1

ASSUMPTION PROGRAM OF LOANS FOR EDUCATION (APLE)

Authoriing legislation (main) 1985 Senate Bill No. 1208 Attachment Attachment Program purpose and description The Assumption Program of Loans for Education (APLE) is a state-funded, competitive loan forgiveness program for -12 teachers and students training to become teachers. APLE consists of three distinct programs for slightly different populations current participants, district interns, and credentialed teachers. District interns are those participating in an alternative certification program run by a public education entity, leading to a teaching credential (Cal. Education Code 44381).

Eligibility determination and aard process To be eligible for the program, students must meet the following eligibility requirements throughout the payment period (Cal. Education Code 69613)

● Be in a program leading to a teacher credential; one of the following o Completed at least 60 units and enrolled in an academic program leading to a bachelor’s degree at an eligible postsecondary institution o Participating in a teacher internship program o Admitted to a program of preparation approved by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing ● Must be admitted to or enrolled in the program at least half-time, and making satisfactory academic progress; ● Must have outstanding ability, as determined by GPA, test scores, faculty evaluations, and interviews; ● Must have received a loan under an approved educational loan program; ● Must agree to teach the equivalent of full-time for at least 4 consecutive years at an eligible school (includes schools that serve low-income or rural areas, are in the bottom two deciles on the Academic Performance Index, or have 20 percent or more of the teachers holding emergency-type teaching permits, such as a substitute teaching permit.)

For district interns to be eligible, they must have a bachelor’s degree; have passed the California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST); have not defaulted on education loans or need to repay an educational grant; and have not completed coursework for an initial or specialist teaching credential (Assumption Program of Loans For Education (APLE) for District Interns Fact Sheet, 2012). Credentialed teachers are eligible if they teach in a public school ranked in the lowest two deciles on the Academic Performance Index, possess a teaching credential, and did not apply for the program as an undergraduate. They agree to continue teaching at a school ranked in the lowest two deciles on the Academic Performance Index (Assumption Program of Loans for Education APLE, 2012).

Applicants to the program are nominated for their awards current students are nominated by their postsecondary institution, district interns are nominated by their district office, and credentialed teachers are nominated by their County Office of Education (Assumption Program of Loans for Education APLE, 2012). Applicants submit applications to a coordinator at their respective nominating bodies, which then review the applications for eligibility and completeness, rank them according

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

to their own selection criteria, and submit selected applications to CSAC. Nominating bodies choose their own selection criteria; GPA and faculty recommendations are commonly used to determine rankings (California Student Aid Commission). CSAC then sends eligible nominees the loan assumption agreement, which the 1.1 nominee must sign and return. For each school year, the commission assumes up to 6500 student loans, with priority given to applicants who have need-based federal loans and to those who have teaching credentials in science, mathematics, or special education. There is a cap of 100 loan assumption agreements for district interns and a cap of 400 for credentialed teachers.

Once a nominee has received the award, the loan assumption agreements begin to take effect once the student has begun his/her required four years of teaching. After the participant’s first year of teaching, the commission will assume up to $2000 of the individual’s education loans; at the end of each subsequent year, the

Attachment Attachment commission will assume up to an additional $3000 of education loans per year, for a total loan assumption of up to $11,000. Additional loans are assumed for participants who teach in particular subject areas at particular schools an additional $1000 per year of loans are assumed for those who teach mathematics, science, or special education in the lowest 60 percentile of Academic Performance Index rankings and those who teach in a school ranked in the lowest two deciles on the Academic Performance Index. With all additional benefits, the total possible loan assumption amount is $19,000.

Originating legislation 1985 Senate Bill No. 1208 Original legislatie intent The intent of the program is to address the problem of the shortage of high-quality teachers, especially in certain subject areas or in schools with fewer resources such as those serving rural or low-income areas. To address this problem, the program is designed to encourage postsecondary students to pursue education leading to teaching credentials, and to seek teaching jobs in low-income, failing, or rural schools, or in subject areas with severe teacher shortages.

Narratie history from original to current The APLE is enshrined in Article 5, sections 69612 through 69615.8 of the California Education Code. Legislation focused on providing grants to teachers was introduced in 1983 via Senate Bill No. 813, the Hughes-Hard Educational Reform Act of 1983 (California State Department of Education, 1983). Later bills, 1985 Senate Bill No. 1208 and 1986 Assembly Bill 3263, shifted the focus from credentialed teachers to those intending to attain teaching credentials in areas with teacher shortages (1985; California Student Aid Commission). Additional amendments were made in later years to increase the number of APLE agreements awarded, from 400 to 4500 (1998 Senate Bill No. 1564), then to 5500 (1999 Assembly Bill No. 1118), and finally to 6500 (2000 Senate Bill No. 1666) (California Student Aid Commission). 2000 Senate Bill No. 1666 made numerous other changes to the APLE, including increases in the maximum benefit amount from $8000 to $11,000 and the years participants are required to teach (from 3 to 4), and designations of awards for out-of-state teachers, teaching in rural areas, and teaching in districts with a high proportion of teachers with emergency teaching permits (2000; California Student Aid Commission). An amendment in 2008 (Senate Bill No. 1158) changed the language of the code’s legislative intent, adding a reference to the rising costs of higher education, coupled with a shift in available financial aid from scholarships and grants to loans and a mention of economically disadvantaged students to motivate the intent of the APLE (2008). As of the 2012-13 Budget Act, no new allocations have been made for the APLE program, though the statute still stands and existing participants still receive benefits (Assumption Program of Loans for Education APLE, 2012; Budget Act of 2013, 2013).

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

GRADUATE APLE

1.1

Authoriing legislation (main) 1998 Senate Bill No. 1564 Program purpose and description Like the APLE, the Graduate APLE is a state-funded, competitive loan forgiveness program for teachers and students training to become teachers, but unlike the APLE, the Graduate APLE focuses on graduate students in training to become faculty.

Attachment Attachment Eligibility determination and aard process To be eligible for the program, an applicant must ● be a United States citizen or eligible noncitizen; ● be a California resident at an eligible institution; ● must have complied with Selective Service requirements; ● not have defaulted on any loans or need to repay any grants; ● be enrolled in or admitted to a graduate program that they will be enrolled in at least half-time and be making satisfactory academic progress; ● have completed a bachelor’s degree or be enrolled in a program leading to a bachelor’s or graduate degree; ● have received an eligible education loan (State of California Graduate Assumption Program of Loans For Education (Graduate APLE) Application/Nomination Packet for academic year 2001-2002, 2001).

Applicants must also agree to teach full-time for at least three consecutive years (or the equivalent) at one or more California postsecondary institutions in order to be awarded.

To apply, students must submit an application to a college official, such as a faculty member or administrator, who then completes the nomination form and forwards the application to CSAC. Awardees are nominated on the basis of their academic ability and financial need. Their academic ability may be determined by GPA, test scores, faculty evaluations, interviews, or recommendations. When CSAC receives the applications, the commission selects outstanding financially-needy applicants to award. CSAC awards warrants for the assumption of up to 500 loans in a year, and each student may receive only one warrant (Cal. Education Code 69618-69619).

Once the student has received the award, the loan assumption agreements begin to take effect once the student has received their graduate degree from a participating institution, has taught full-time for one academic year (or the equivalent) at a regionally-accredited California college or university, and has redeemed his or her award. After each year of teaching, for up to three years, CSAC assumes up to $2000 of the student’s outstanding education loans, for a total possible loan assumption of $6000 (Cal. Education Code 69618-69619).

Originating legislation 1998 Senate Bill No. 1564

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

Original legislatie intent The program is intended to attract more students into graduate education in order to fill a growing need for new faculty caused by rising college enrollments and the retirement of existing faculty. In addition, it acknowledges the increase in the cost of higher education as a reason that students do not 1.1 pursue graduate education.

Narratie history from original to current The Graduate APLE is enshrined in Article 5.5, sections 69618 through 69619 of the California Education Code. It was established in 1998 by Senate Bill No. 1564 to replace the existing State Graduate Fellowship Program (1998). It was amended in 2000 and 2003. The 2000 amendment, enacted through Assembly Bill 2159, expanded the eligibility requirements to include California residents attending an eligible school outside the state, students enrolled in bachelor’s degree programs, and those enrolled at least half-time in their academic programs (2000). The 2003 amendment (A.B. 1754)

Attachment Attachment prohibited warrants from being issued in 2003-04 (2003). Funding for the Graduate APLE, as with the APLE program, has not been included in the Budget Act as of 2012-13 (Budget Act of 2013, 2013).

STATE NURSING ASSUMPTION PROGRAM OF LOANS FOR EDUCATION (SNAPLE)

Authoriing legislation (main) 2005 Senate Bill 63 Program purpose and description The intended purpose of this program is to increase the number of nursing faculty members at California college and universities. The program will assume up to $8,333 for each year that an individual has taught nursing studies at an accredited institution.

Eligibility determination and aard process In order to be eligible for this program and individual must ● Be a U.S. citizen ● Be a California resident ● Making satisfactory academic progress ● Cannot be delinquent or in default on any student loans

The applicant will also be evaluated on the following criteria before being accepted into the program

● Grade point average ● Test scores ● Faculty evaluations ● Interviews ● Other recommendations

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

Once meeting the above requirements and agreeing to teach for at least three years the individual will receive up to the annual award amount of $8,333 (California Senate Bill 63, 2005). 1.1

Originating legislation 2005 Senate Bill 63 Original legislatie intent Senate Bill 63 sought to encourage people to complete their graduate educations and serve as nursing faculty members at California

Attachment Attachment postsecondary institutions (California Senate Bill 63, 2005).

Narratie history from original to current SNAPLE is enshrined in Article 1, sections 70100 through 70110 of the California Education Code. The program was originally established in 2005 through Senate Bill No. 63, with an amendment made in 2006 (SB 1309) to allow undergraduate students to be eligible, and to allow those teaching part-time to be eligible for payments after they have worked the equivalent of three full-time academic years. In addition, SB 1309 established SNAPLE-NSF, specifically for nursing employees of certain state facilities; however, as of 2012 SNAPLE-NSF is considered to be an inactive program (California Senate Bill 63, 2005).

OHN R. USTICE (R) PROGRAM

Authoriing legislation (main) 2008 ohn R. ustice (R) Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act (R Act) Program purpose and description The 2008 R Act established with U.S. Code 3797cc-21 provides loan repayment assistance for local, state, and federal public defenders and local and state prosecutors. The purpose of this program is to help retain public defenders and prosecutors as student loan debt is continually a main reason why attorneys leave positions in the public sector (R Act of 2008, 2008). In California, this program is authorized by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and administered by CSAC.

Eligibility determination and aard process Individuals must remain employed as a prosecutor or public defender for at least three years and is not currently in default on any education loans. In 2016 the award amount for California was $473 for each recipient (ohn R. ustice Grant Program, Cal OES).

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

eferences

1.1 Alternative Certification. Cal. Education Code 44381

Assumption Program of Loans For Education (APLE) for District Interns Fact Sheet. (2012). Retrieved from http//www.csac.ca.gov/pubs/aple/apledistrictinternsfactsheet.pdf. Assumption Program of Loans for Education APLE. (2012). Retrieved from http//www.csac.ca.gov/doc.aspid111 Attachment Attachment Assumption Program of Loans for Education. Cal. Education Code 69613 Budget Act of 2017, CA-AB 97, (2017). Brown, E.G., oeno e y. (2017). Retrieved from http//www.ebudget.ca.gov/2017-18/pdf/BudgetSummary/FullBudgetSummary.pdf. California Assembly Bill 94 (Chapter 50, Statutes of 2013). California Assembly Bill 97 (Ting, Chapter 14, Statutes of 2017). California Assembly Bill 110 (Blumenfield, Chapter 20, Statutes of 2013). California Assembly Bill 131 (Cedillo, Chapter 604, Statutes of 2011). California Assembly Bill 473 (Chapter 1616, Statutes of 1969). California Assembly Bill 540 (Firebaugh, Chapter 814, Statutes of 2001). California Assembly Bill 957 (Migden, Chapter 721, Statutes of 1997). California Assembly Bill 1754 (Pacheco, Chapter 227 Statutes of 2000). California Assembly Bill 2000 (Gomez, Chapter 675, Statutes of 2014). California Assembly Bill 2159 (Pacheco, Chapter 460, Statutes of 2000). California Assembly Bill 2506 (Thurmond, Chapter 388, Statutes of 2016). California Assembly Bill 2811 (Migden, Chapter 659, Statutes of 2002) California Senate Bill 63 (Chapter 73, Statutes of 2005). California Senate Bill 103 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 324, Statutes of 2015). California Senate Bill 174 (Statutes of 1972). California Senate Bill 451 (Price, Chapter 627, Statutes of 2011). California Senate Bill 647 (Denham, Chapter 12, Statutes of 2009). California Senate Bill 1028 (ackson, Chapter 692, Statutes of 2014). California Senate Bill 1158 (Benoit, Chapter 516, Statutes of 2008).

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

California Senate Bill 1208 (Hart, Chapter 1483, Statutes of 1985).

1.1 California Senate Bill 1564 (Chapter 330, Statutes of 1998).

California Senate Bill 1644, (Ortiz, Chapter 403, Statutes of 2000).

California Senate Bill 1666 (Alarcon, Chapter 70, Statutes of 2000).

California Chafee Grant for Foster outh. (2015). Retrieved from https//chafee.csac.ca.gov/.

Attachment Attachment California Department of Social Services, (2015). lon ee n o ee. Retrieved from http//www.childsworld.ca.gov/res/pdf/ChafeeFactSheet.pdf. California Dream Act FA for Parents and Students. California Student Aid Commission (2017). Retrieved from http//www.csac.ca.gov/pubs/forms/grntfrm/californiadreamactfaq.pdf California State Assembly Democratic Caucus. Over $37 million in Middle Class Tuition Assistance Still

Available. (2014). Retrieved from http//asmdc.org/news-room/press-releases-statements/over-37-million-in-middle-class-tuition-assistance-still-available.

California State Department of Education. (1983). e onl eo o y o . Retrieved from https//files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED241155.pdf. California Student Aid Commission, eo o e ele. Retrieved from http//www.csac.ca.gov/pubs/forms/grntfrm/20042005APLERpt.pdf. California Student Aid Commission Cal Grant Competitive Awards. lon en oon (2012). Retrieved from http//www.csac.ca.gov/doc.aspid103 General Cal Grant Eligibility Requirements. lon en oon (2012). Retrieved from http//www.csac.ca.gov/doc.aspid105 Chafee Grant Program Application. (2016). Retrieved from https//chafee.csac.ca.gov/SupportFiles/ChafeeApplicationBWGeneric.pdf. Child Development Teacher and Supervisor Grant Program. Cal. Education Code 69620-69628 Child Development Grant 2011-12 Nomination and Application Packet. (2011). Retrieved from http//www.csac.ca.gov/pubs/forms/grntfrm/2011-12nominationapplicationpacket.pdf. Child Development Permits. (2016). State of California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Retrieved from https//www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/leaflets/cl797.pdfsfvrsn665bc5850 Child Development Grant Program. (2012). Retrieved from http//www.csac.ca.gov/doc.aspid110. Cochrane, D.F., and Szabo-ubitz, L. (2009). oe n le lon oe o n ollee

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

nnl . The Institute for College Access and Success. Retrieved from https//ticas.org/sites/default/files/pubfiles/hopeshurdles.pdf. Death Benefits. Cal. Labor Code 4709 1.1 Discussion of the upcoming Review of California’s Master Plan for Higher Education. lon en oon (2009). Retrieved from http//www.csac.ca.gov/comm/comm/111909/tab%205.pdf. th Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, H.R. 3443, 106 Congress (1999). Graduate Assumption Program of Loans for Education. Cal. Education Code 69618-69619 The Hegland, Shell, Donahoe, and Donald Doyle Act, CA-AB 1546, Education Code 21700-21716 Attachment Attachment (Cal. Stat. 1955) ohn R. ustice Grant Program Program Overview, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Retrieved from http//www.csac.ca.gov/doc.aspid1423 ohn R. ustice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. 3797cc-21. Retrieved from https//www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/3797cc-21 Law Enforcement Personnel Dependents (LEPD) Grant Program Fact Sheet. (2006). Retrieved from http//www.csac.ca.gov/pubs/forms/grntfrm/g-187.pdf. Occupational Education and Training Grant, CA-AB 1794, Education Code 31295-31296.2 (Cal. Stat. 1972).

th Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001, H.R.2873, 107 Congress (2001). State of California Graduate Assumption Program of Loans For Education (Graduate APLE) Application/Nomination Packet for academic year 2001-2002. (2001). Retrieved from http//www.csac.ca.gov/pubs/forms/grntfrm/g-51.pdf. The State Scholarship Subsistence Act, CA-SB 160, Education Code 31221 (Cal. Stat. 1967). Strayer, George D, et al. A Report of a Survey of the Needs of California in Higher Education nlne e o lon 1948 http//oac.cdlib.org/ark/13030/hb2p3004kd/brandoac4 Taylor, M. (2016). ee o e lon onl on ne o. Legislative Analyst’s Office. Retrieved from http//www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2016/3501/National-Guard-Educ-Award-Prog-092716.pdf. What is AB540 (2018). Retrieved from http//ab540.com/WhatIsAB540.html

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

APPENDI TABLES

1.1 able 1 aimum Cal Grant aards by program and institution type 11 Public Priate Californi niersit oy Foury oy Foury California a State y of ear ear ear ear

Attachment Attachment Communi niersit Californi non nonpr for for ty College y a profit ofit profit profit

Cal Grant Awards $4,00 Cal Grant A NA $5,472 $12,192 NA $9,084 NA 0

Cal Grant B First-year recipients $1,796 $1,796 $1,796 $1,796 $1,796 $1,796 $1,796 Second to Fourth-year $10,88 $5,79 recipients $1,796 $7,268 $13,988 $1,796 0 $1,796 6

Cal Grant C Award $2,46 $2,46 $2,46 tuition/fees $2,462 NA NA 2 NA 2 2 books/supplies $547 NA NA $547 NA $547 $547 Source California State Budget Act of 2015

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

able Percentage of aerage total student epenses paid for by maimum Cal Grant aards by 1.1 institution type liing situation and aard type 11 Cal Grant B

After first Cal Grant Cal Grant A First year year C1 Attachment Attachment Public institutions California Community College Living with family NA 14.9 14.9 24.9 Living off campus NA 9.4 9.4 15.7

California State University Living with family 33.6 11.0 44.6 NA Living off campus 23.4 7.7 31.1 NA Living on campus 23.3 7.6 30.9 NA

University of California Living with family 52.9 7.8 60.7 NA Living off campus 40.4 6.0 46.4 NA Living on campus 40.3 5.9 46.2 NA

Private, non-profit, four-year college Living with family 22.5 4.4 26.9 NA Living off campus 19.2 3.8 22.9 NA Living on campus 19.7 3.9 23.6 NA

Private, for-profit institutions Two-year college Living with family NA 7.1 43.0 11.9 Living off campus NA 5.5 33.6 9.3

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

Four-year college Living with family 16.0 7.2 23.2 12.0 1.1 Living off campus 12.5 5.6 18.1 9.4 Sources California State Budget Act of 2015; California State University Schedule of Systemwide Fees 2015-16; University of California Office of the President Operating Budget 2015, 2015-16 Tuition and Fee Levels; National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2016 1 Total award combines maximum awards for tuition/fees and books/supplies.

Attachment Attachment

able Number of undergraduate financial aard recipients total dollars aarded and aerage aard amounts by California Student Aid Commissionadministered program 11 Number of otal dollars Aerage recipients aarded annual aard dollars

Cal Grant awards (entitlement and competitive)1 1,050,575,0 Cal Grant A 111,678 00 9,407 802,632,00 Cal Grant B 209,598 0 3,829 Cal Grant C 6,939 4,724,000 681

Other grants Middle Class Scholarships 49,420 43,920,288 889 Child Development Teacher and Supervisor Grant Program 237 218,476 922 Law Enforcement Personnel Dependents Scholarships 16 92,075 5,794 California National Guard Education Assistance 395 2,445,161 6,190

Loan assumption programs Assumption Program of Loans for Education 4,598 14,800,000 3,219 State Nursing Assumption Program of Loans for Education 36 323,902 8,997

Source National Association of State Student Grant Aid Programs (http//www.nassgap.org/survey/stateDatacheck.asp)

1 Includes recipients eligible through the California Dream Act

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

1.1 Attachment Attachment

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

Table 4. Adopted revisions to the Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-asconcellos Cal Grant Program of 2000 2003 through 2016 ear 1.1 adopte d Bill Summary of reision Cal Grants affected Citation 2003 SB 728 Requires Cal Grant eligible institutions to All Cal Grants California Senate Bill 728 (Scott, resolve financial need conflict for applicants and Chapter 339, Statutes of 2003) recipients

Attachment Attachment 2006 AB Eliminated eligibility criteria of dependency and Cal Grant Entitlement for California Assembly Bill 2813 2813 independency and instead established that CCC transfer students (De La Torre, Chapter 822, eligible students would be anyone who is not Statutes of 2006) 28 years old or older by 12/31 or application year.

2006 SB Allows students to obtain their high school Cal Grant Entitlement California Senate Bill 1383 1383 diploma by 12/31 of the academic year following Awards (A, B, and CCC (Ortiz, Chapter 652, Statutes of their date of application and still be eligible transfer) 2006)

2006 AB Would require recipients to affirm in writing, Cal Grant Entitlement for California Assembly Bill 840 840 under penalty of perjury, that they have met the CCC transfer students (Arambula, Chapter 43, Statutes specified requirements for eligibility. Would also of 2006) select, at random, 10% of awardees and verify with institutions their eligibility standing.

2008 AB Allows a student to demonstrate attainment of a Cal Grant B Competitive California Assembly Bill 2260 2260 community college or college GPA of at least a (Committee on Higher 2.0 from any college, not just a CCC Education, Chapter 235, Statutes of 2008) 2010 SB Deleted requirement that financial need All Cal Grants California Senate Bill 1382 1382 calculation be consistent with methodology (Committee on erans Affairs, from the 2001-02 academic year. Chapter 113, Statutes of 2010)

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

1.1

Table 4. Adopted revisions to the Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-asconcellos Cal Grant Program of 2000 2003 through 2016 (contd) ear adopte d Bill Summary of reision Cal Grants affected Citation

Attachment Attachment 2010 AB Redefines a qualifying institution. In addition to the All Cal Grants California Assembly Bill 2086 2086 previous requirements (Private or independent (Coto, Chapter 644, Statutes institution that participates in specified federal of 2009) student aid programs, nonprofit institutions, and public postsecondary institutions) institutions must provide information on where to access CA license exam passage rates for specific undergraduate programs. 2011 SB 70 The maximum household income and asset levels All Cal Grants California Senate Bill 70 of a renewing applicant would either be the (Committee on Budget and adjusted household income and asses levels or the Fiscal Review, Chapter 7, maximum household income and asset levels, Statutes of 2011) whichever is greater. Institutions would also have to annually report enrollment, persistence, grad data, job placement, salary, and wage info.

2012 SB Schools that lose their eligibility status due to All Cal Grants California Senate Bill 1028( 1028 exceeding the 3-year cohort default rate or being Committee on Budget and below a 30% graduation rate may regain its Fiscal Review, Chapter 575, eligibility in the year it satisfies requirements rather Statutes of 2012) than the following academic year.

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

2012 SB Set maximum tuition award amounts for Cal Grant A Cal Grants A and B California Senate Bill 1016 1016 and B recipients at private for-profit and nonprofit (Committee on Budget and 1.1 institutions. Allows students who initially qualified Fiscal Review, Chapter 38, for both a Cal Grant A and B and received a Cal Statutes of 2012) Grant B to be awarded a renewal Cal Grant A if the recipient became ineligible for a Cal Grant B and still meets Cal Grant A criteria. Students must have also attended a CCC in the academic year Attachment Attachment preceding the academic year they will use their award.

Table 4. Adopted revisions to the Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-asconcellos Cal Grant Program of 2000 2003 through 2016 (contd) ear adopte d Bill Summary of reision Cal Grants affected Citation 2014 AB Redefines eligibility of institutions from participating All Cal Grants California Assembly Bill 1590 in at least 2 of the following federal campus-based 1590 (Wieckowski, Chapter programs federal Work Study, Perkins Loan 667, Statutes 2014) Program, and the SEOGP to participating in at least 2 of the following federal programs federal Work Study, Stafford Loan Program, and SEOGP. Redefines graduation rate to be percentage of full-time, first-time degree or certificate seeking undergraduate students who graduate in 150% or less of expected time

Allows students to receive Cal Grants if they were California Senate Bill 1314 enrolled in upper division coursework of a (Block, Chapter 438, 2016 SB 1314 baccalaureate program at a community college Cal Grants A and B Statutes 2016)

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

Exempts student from requirement of graduating

1.1 from a California high school or equivalent if a California Assembly Bill AB student was a resident of the state on their 18th Cal Grant Entitlement for 1449 (Lopez, Chapter 433, 2016 1449 birthday. CCC transfer students Statutes of 2016)

Attachment Attachment

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

APPENDIX Cost of Attendance

The Cal Grant program as currently designed focuses on covering tuition and fees for students with financial need but provides only limited support for living expenses. Tuition and fees comprise a relatively small share of the expenses students must cover while they are in college. This is particularly true for community college students, many of whom benefit from the BOG tuition waiver/California Promise and do not face tuition and fee charges. But even at the University of California, where tuition and fees are about $14,000 a year, these charges constitute only about 40 percent of the estimated budget for students living on campus.

The question of equitable subsidies for college students’ living expenses is not simple. Unlike tuition and books, housing and food costs are expenses everyone faces, whether or not they are students. But being in school requires time for classes and studying. Working full time while in college significantly lowers the probability of academic success. So, forgone earnings because of time out of the labor force are a very real cost of being in college. Without assistance covering these costs, many students face daunting financial barriers. Even students who live at home with their parents frequently have to contribute to help cover living expenses.1

Students can cover a portion of their living expenses through work and loans, but not the full amount. Some grant aid is necessary for students whose parents cannot cover their living expenses.

Our proposal suggests a maximum self-help level of $11,000 for UC and CSU students in Step 1, with the legislature appropriating enough funds to lower that self-help over time to meet CSAC-identified affordability targets that allow for reasonable work expectations and little or no debt. We propose an $8,000 maximum for community college students in Step 1. It is reasonable that opting for this less expensive route should lower the financial burden for these students, who are more likely to be juggling family responsibilities and whose post-college incomes are likely to be lower, making repaying debts more challenging. Again, the goal should be to reduce—but not eliminate—the level of self-help over time.

It is counterproductive for the state to put considerable resources into making tuition and fees affordable but to ignore the remaining financial barriers that will diminish the share of students who succeed in earning degrees in a timely manner; however, the state needs a new, more consistent method of calculating those financial costs

n o o enne

If the financial aid system is going to base subsidies on the full cost of attendance, including housing, food, books and supplies, transportation, and other basic living expenses, there should be a reasonable and equitable way to estimate these expenses. Currently, campuses derive student budgets through surveys or other strategies. There is little consistency.

1 2015 39

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

On-campus room and board charges across UC campuses in 2017-18 ranged from $13,115 in San Diego to 35 percent more—$17,549—at Berkeley. At UC San Diego, the budget beyond tuition, fees, and books is slightly lower for on-campus than for off-campus students. The on-campus premium at the other UC institutions ranges from $1,607 at UCLA to $8,295 at Merced.

There are clearly geographical differences in cost across the state, but there is considerable variation in budgets even within geographical areas. For example, Berkeley City College budgets more than UC Berkeley for students living in apartments, but about half as much for those living at home with parents. San Francisco State budgets slightly more than UC Berkeley for students living in apartments, but charges considerably less for its dormitories. UC Riverside budgets $6,000 less than Riverside City college for students living off campus.

ariation in living expense budgets San Francisco Area and the Riverside Area

UC SF State Berkeley City Berkeley College n/a In a dorm $22,819 $19,465 $19,656 In an apartment $19,077 $19,465 $6,363 At home with $12,629 $4,963 parents Riverside City UC Riverside CSU San Bernardino College

In a dorm $19,430 $15,508 $20,926 In an apartment $14,800 $16,428

$4,374 At home with $10,883 $2,557

parents Source NCES, College Navigator

The variation in budgets for books and supplies also raises questions about consistency in the methodology used across institutions. Most (but not all) community colleges budgeted $1,854 in 2017-18. The highest UC book budget was $1,357 at UC Irvine, and Berkeley budgeted just $891.

We recommend that CSAC set geographically-sensitive budgets for non-tuition and fee expenses and use them to define the expectation that campuses meet need. Cal Grants should not differ based on living in a dorm versus an apartment, but institutions with more expensive dorms would have to provide more generous institutional grants in order to preserve the standard self-help amount and hit CSAC-identified affordability targets. Schools that do not meet those targets will have to include standard notices on their award letters that their high housing prices prevent them from meeting the state’s affordability standards. his policy should encourage campuses to keep their on-campus living options more affordable.

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

en ln oe

California public colleges and universities also vary significantly in how they account for expenses associated with living at home. UC campuses add about $7,000 in other expenses to the budgets of students living at home, for whom budgets do not include a room and board component. Community colleges add an average of about $600 in other expenses beyond those allowed for students living off-campus. (De Anza, Foothill, and Berkeley City are among the community colleges not adding at all to the other expenses budgets for students living at home; San ose City College adds about $5,500.) CSU institutions do not provide any extra allowance.

These is no reason to believe that the expenses facing students living at home would vary so much depending on the segment in which they are enrolled. For the Cal Grant, CSAC should establish a standardized methodology to calculate these students’ budgets, allowing for the reality that there are costs associated with an extra person living in the household and for the need for students to contribute to their family’s expenses. This practice will raise the estimated cost of attendance for community college and CSU students living at home.

n o o ln neen

Even with budgets standardized across institutions, the revised Cal Grant system still must address the different costs facing students who choose different living arrangements. Should a student living at home receive the same level Cal Grant and institutional aid as a student living in campus housing, perhaps measuring cost of attendance by taking an average of the costs of the two Or should the cost of attendance (and resulting aid level) vary based on the student’s living situation

Providing incentives for students to live at home by using an average cost of attendance that effectively underfunds on-campus housing and slightly over-funds students living at home could have have a range of impacts on access and success. On the one hand, some students do not have the option to live at home. Moreover, there is significant evidence that living on campus can have a positive impact on student success.2 On the other hand, there could be real savings to both students and the state from encouraging living at home. In other words, there are benefits and drawbacks to both approaches.

We recommend an approach that both makes on-campus living accessible for low-income students by meeting need (assuming a reasonable self-help) for students who live on campus, but also allows students to work less or take on less debt, through a lower self-help requirement, should they should choose to save money and live at home. CSAC should ● Develop a cost of living assessment for students living on campus or in apartments with the standard affordability target discussed above that assumes a self-help total of $11,000 for at UCs and CSUs, and $8,000 for community college students. ● Develop a cost of living assessment that more consistently and fairly takes into account costs most students still bear while living at home, but set the affordability target by assuming a lower self-help target for students who choose this money-saving option. This approach makes living on campus an accessible option for all students, while still giving students the option of working less or taking on less debt by going the cheaper route.

2 20102010002 Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation Attachment 1.1

o o o ln on oe l n leel

While our recommendations establish Cal Grant Awards that would generally be consistent for all Pell Grant recipients in a segment, with institutional award levels varying to fill in gaps in need at UC and CSU,the lower cost of attendance for students living at home does create some caveats to that general rule. Specifically, because Pell grants, Cal Grants, plus the self-help requirement cannot exceed total cost of attendance, some CSU and perhaps UC students living at home may receive lower CSAC-provided Cal Grant awards than other Pell recipients. At community colleges, where CSAC awards will be designed to meet need without an institutional supplement, there is likely to be more variation in award amounts.

CSAC-provided Cal Grant awards for these categories of students may vary

● Some students living at home and attending CSU and possibly UC will receive smaller grants because of the lower cost of attendance. ● Students living at home and attending community colleges will receive smaller grant than those living on their own. However, because they will have a lower self-help expectation, the different in award levels will be smaller than the difference in COA. Cal Grant award levels will taper down from the maximum level for as family income rises.

e en

Many community college students enroll part time. They clearly have lower tuition and book charges than full-time students. They also have more time to work. (Their higher earnings are reflected in higher EFCs, but not until the third year of enrollment, when EFC is based on income during the calendar year in which they were first enrolled.) Except in rare situations, the federal Pell Grant award is a function of EFC, but not cost of attendance. The award is pro-rated for attendance intensity with, for example, half-time students receiving half of the award they would get if they were full time. The simplest adjustment to the Cal Grant would take the same approach. In the example above of a $7,000 Cal Grant for community college students student, half-time students would receive $3,500 Cal Grants.

The system is designed to meet the need of full-time students. It pro-rates awards for part-time students without addressing the question of measuring need among these students, a process that the federal student aid system also avoids.

Epanding Opportunity educing Debt | The Century Foundation

Attachment 1.1

APPENDIX 8 Legislative Specifications

Personalied Estimates ● Require the California Franchise Ta oard to include an option on the state income ta return for a tapayer to request information about college epenses and aid for the tapayer or a dependent based on information available from the tapayer’s ta return. ● Amend section 19557 of the California Revenue and Taation Code, which allows CSAC to receive income information regarding financial aid applicants with the applicants permission, to allow CSAC to receive such information for the purposes of preparing and providing estimates of college epenses and aid. ● Require institutions, as a condition of participating in the Cal Grant program: To provide CSAC with electronic access to the college’s net price calculators which are already required for colleges participating in federal aid programs To provide admitted students with financial aid offers in a format that makes them comparable to other colleges’ offers through a format selected by CSAC.

erging the Cal Grant Programs The report notes that there are at least three ways that the combination of Cal Grants and institutional aid can be spread more broadly and stacked to address students’ total needs. This version maintains a Guaranteed Cal Grant for UC and CSU that is equal to tuition and fees, through a required match by the institution. Institutional aid would be provided at the discretion of the institutions or systems in addition to that aid in order to meet the affordability target.

Statement of Legislative Intent

It is the intent of the Legislature to make it possible for every California resident to enroll in college to earn an undergraduate degree without having to work more than a modest amount, and with minimal if any borrowing. To achieve this goal, the Legislature recognies that financial aid must include support for epenses beyond tuition and fees, and that adequately addressing students’ needs requires a combination of federal, state and institutional aid.

● The Legislature is establishing an affordability target that limits a student’s need to work or borrow in order to cover college epenses. ● The Legislature intends that state funding for Cal Grants will be sufficient so that the combination of federal, state and institutional aid is enough for each California resident student’s financial aid package to meet or eceed the affordability target, if institutions help keep dormitory and other costs reasonable. ● The Legislature believes that the most common estimate of a family’s ability to pay, the federal EFC, fails to take into consideration the higher cost of living faced by most Californians. The Legislature requests that the Commission provide recommendations for adusting the measure for California aid purposes. ● The Legislature has determined that institutional admission and progress requirements make a separate grade point average requirement in the Cal Grant program redundant.

Expanding Opportunity, Reducing Debt The Century Foundation

Attachment 1.1

● The Legislature has determined that combining family resource measures into an inde like the EFC is more appropriate and easier to administer than using income and asset tables.

Unified Cal Grant

Eliminate the separate Cal Grant A, , C, T and the iddle Class Scholarship.

The Cal Grant Award is: ● Guaranteed to any California resident, regardless of age or time out of school, for a total of up to four years of full-time-equivalent enrollment at a California public institution. ● Available for any year of undergraduate enrollment, for not-less-than-half-time enrollment in any program leading to a degree or certificate program of not more than four months full time. ● For students enrolling at least half time but less than full time, the amount of the Cal Grant Award shall be the same proportion of it would have been if the student was attending full time.

Definitions

“CSAC-Estimated COA” means an estimate of tuition and fees, food and housing epenses, transportation, personal epenses, and books supplies. Estimates vary by region, and separate estimates are established for students living on their own not on campus and dependent students living at home with one or more parents.

“School-Estimated COA” means the institution of higher education’s estimate of tuition and fees, food and housing epenses, transportation, personal epenses, and books supplies, based on a student’s living situation.

“Family Resources” means the Commission’s estimate of resources available to a student. For 2019-20: the amount for dependent students shall be the amount of the parent contribution federal Epected Family Contribution after subtracting the student contribution portion the amount for independent students students shall be equal to the federal Epected Family Contribution. In subsequent years the amount shall be determined in a manner established by the Commission, taking into consideration differences in regional cost of living.

“Self-elp Epectation” means the amount that a student is epected to contribute toward college epenses through modest work, loans, or both. For 2019-20 the amount of the self-help epectation shall be: ● $8,000 for students enrolling full time in a California community college ● $11,000 for students enrolling full time in any other institution In subsequent years the amounts shall be established by the Commission or set in the udget Act by the Legislature upon recommendation of the Commission.

Expanding Opportunity, Reducing Debt The Century Foundation

Attachment 1.1

“Affordability target” is the amount of grant aid necessary for a student’s out-of-pocket epenses to meet the self-help epectation. It is equal to the school-estimated COA minus the family resources including federal grant aid and the self-help epectation.

“Intended Amount” means the amount of grant aid needed to meet the affordability target, taking into consideration Pell Grants and other grant aid received by a student.

“Adusted Intended Amount” means the amount of grant aid needed to meet the affordability target, if the affordability target used CSAC-estimated COA instead of school-estimated COA.

“Cal Grant Award” means: ● For UC and CSU, systemwide tuition and fees or the adusted intended amount, whichever is lower. ● For the California community colleges, the adusted intended amount. ● For private institutions, the commission component.

“Commission Component” means the Commission’s allocation of grant aid for a student that forms a portion of the Cal Grant Award. For 2019-20 the amount of the commission component for a full-time student shall be equal to: ● For the California community colleges, the adusted intended amount. ● For UC, $_____ or of systemside tuition and fees or a proportionate amount for students who require less than the G. ● For CSU, $_____ or of systemside tuition and fees or a portion of the adusted intended amount that bears the same proportion as $_____ bears to to systemwide tuition and fees. ● For the nonprofit/ASC institutions, the Commission componen for UC, ecept no more than the institution’s average per-student spending on instruction during the three most recent years that federal data are available.

“Institutional Component” means a portion of the Cal Grant Award provided by the institution of higher education. Institutions shall be required, pursuant to the participation agreement with CSAC, to provide an institutional component equal to the difference between the Cal Grant Award and the commission component.

Other Provisions

Studies of Affordability

● The Commission shall arrange for one or more studies of alternative approaches to the federal Epected Family Contribution calculation, including a consideration of regional cost of living adustments, and make recommendations to the Legislature.

● The Commission shall develop recommended methodologies for determining student epenses other than living epenses for use by California institutions of higher education.

Expanding Opportunity, Reducing Debt The Century Foundation

Attachment 1.1

Fund for Innovation in College Affordability ● A fund is established, to be managed over multiple years by the California Student Aid Commission, to test creative approaches to address financial barriers that prevent students from enrolling in or optimiing their participation in college. ● Programs tested through the fund shall be subect to independent evaluations designed in advance of implementation, and by evaluators not selected, managed or paid by the participating institutions or organiations.

Expanding Opportunity, Reducing Debt The Century Foundation Attachment 1.2

CENTURY FOUNDATION REPORT Staff Recommended Roadmap

Introduction

The Century Foundation (TCF) report Expanding Opportunity, Reducing Debt: Reforming California Student Aid recommends substantial reforms to California’s financial aid system, unified by the principle that financial aid should a) be as easy and convenient for students and families to access and understand; and b) better serve students with financial need by covering a greater share of total cost of attendance (COA) than does the current tuition-centered model.

In the interest of providing Commissioners with sufficient time to fully consider the policy, fiscal, and programmatic implications of these changes, staff have prepared this memorandum containing a recommended “Roadmap” to financial aid reform. The Roadmap addresses the components of the TCF report in three distinct stages, spread out over the remainder of the 2018 legislative year and the 2019-2020 budget and legislative sessions.

Taken together, the policy recommendations in these three stages represent a holistic reform of State financial aid and would create a simplified, streamlined system and make college more affordable for hundreds of thousands of students. However, there would be considerable costs associated with most of these reforms, and policy implications that the Commission should consider as well. This Roadmap represents a recommendation from CSAC staff for the process of considering these changes. While the reforms are offered here in three “stages,” the overall approach is comprehensive, and these reforms are being offered in multiple phases to simplify the policy options contained within.

Stage One: The 2018-2019 Budget

The first stage includes issues the Commission has discussed in the past, and that can be addressed in current (Fiscal Year 2018-2019) budget proposals.

Cal Grant B Access Award

The major statewide grant program that provides support for nontuition expenses is the Cal Grant B Access Award (also known as the book and supply award, because it is intended to be used to purchase textbooks and other educational supplies – but can be used to finance any educational expenses a student incurs). Currently, the Access Award provides eligible students with up to $1,672 per academic year, which includes a base grant of $1,648 and an additional $24 that is financed by the College Access Tax Credit.

According to historical sources available to CSAC staff, the Access Award was set at approximately $900 when first implemented in the late 1960s – an amount equivalent to roughly $6,000 in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars. With over 240,000 students receiving the Access Award in 2018-19, this award is one of the most effective ways of getting grant aid directly in the hands of students with high levels of unmet financial need.

An increase to the Cal Grant B Access Award carries with it a substantial fiscal impact to the State (see chart, below), but could also pay significant dividends, as it would help reduce student food and housing insecurity by providing direct grant aid to low-income students, and would also help by reducing students’ reliance on loan debt. Attachment 1.2

FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 Maximum Award $ 1,800 $ 2,400 $ 3,000 Students Paid 242,561 254,689 267,424 Net Cost Increase $ 31,338,881 $ 162,797,241 $ 307,323,089

Maximum Award $ 2,400 $ 3,000 $ 4,200 Students Paid 242,561 254,689 267,424 Net Cost Increase $ 155,044,991 $ 292,688,656 $ 580,095,062

Maximum Award $ 3,000 $ 4,500 $ 6,000 Students Paid 242,561 254,689 267,424 Net Cost Increase $ 278,751,101 $ 617,417,195 $ 989,253,020

Recommendation:

• Propose budget language and appropriate funding to phase in, over three years, an increase to the Cal Grant B Access Award, starting in the 2018-19 academic year.

CSAC Outreach and Early Information

The TCF report recommendations on the Commission’s outreach efforts, including providing early, personalized information on student financial aid estimates, are consistent with recent CSAC efforts, including:

• Expanding outreach to underserved communities, such as through the African-American Student Outreach Initiative. • Incorporating personalized information about aid estimates, including federal, State, and institutional aid, into CSAC communications and public outreach materials, such as preliminary award notification letters and the net price calculator that will be a part of the modernized WebGrants system.

Recommendation:

• Propose budget funding for a permanent, dedicated outreach unit at CSAC (3-5 positions), with a mandate to prioritize efforts on providing information and services related to financial aid and the application process to the most underserved communities in California – including, but not limited to, students of color, rural students, and current and former foster youth • Propose statutory language requiring CSAC, as part of our outreach efforts, to provide information to students and families as early as possible regarding their estimated eligibility for federal, State, and institutional financial aid, provided reliable estimates can be attained – but keep this language intentionally broad so as to keep up with changing circumstances (such as the updated WebGrants system, the CSAC website, etc.) Attachment 1.2

Innovation in Financial Aid

Individual campuses may have innovative new ideas for enhancing college affordability and reducing their students’ overall cost of attendance that have not yet been taken into consideration by the State grant aid system; this proposal would allow the State to not only finance but evaluate and consider the merit of pilot proposals at the campus level. (Some campuses, for example, have experimented with “emergency aid” programs to provide much- needed support for students at risk of dropping out, becoming homeless, etc.) Under this proposal, the Commission would receive an annual allocation from the State budget and administer grants to institutions, via a competitive application process, that want to experiment with innovative approaches to financial aid. As a condition of receiving these dollars, campuses would be required to perform an independent evaluation of these programs and their outcomes and report back to the Commission. The Commission could then report outcomes to the Legislature and the Administration, recommending statewide funding for any programs that yield positive results. Recommendation: • Propose statutory and budget language, accompanied by a budget allocation, creating a Fund for Innovation in College Affordability, and specifying that the Commission shall issue grants from this fund for the purpose of enhancing college affordability for students with high levels of financial need; as a condition of receiving these funds, the receiving institution or segment would report back to the Commission on the results of an independent evaluation of the outcomes of these programs

Stage Two: The 2018 (or 2019) Legislative Year

The second stage of financial aid reform would involve the Commission considering major policy changes to the construction, eligibility, and award amounts of the Cal Grant program, by consolidating the major current grant programs (Cal Grant A, B, and C, and possibly the Middle Class Scholarship) into a single unified Cal Grant.

Cal Grant Consolidation Due to the need to study the effects of this proposal further, including the total number of students served and the costs to the State, this component of the reform project would be discussed at the Commission’s June 2018 meeting, with a goal of introducing statutory changes either near the end of the 2018 legislative year or at the beginning of the 2019 legislative year. Recommendation: • Direct staff to propose a comprehensive consolidation proposal to the Commission no later than the June 2018 meeting, with a full consideration of the policy, fiscal, and programmatic impact of consolidating all of the current components of the Cal Grant Attachment 1.2

program, as well as the Middle Class Scholarship, into a single Cal Grant program. The development of any such proposal should involve discussions with all key stakeholders, including, but not limited to, segments, institutions, legislative staff, the Department of Finance, and students. o As much as possible, this consolidation should involve closing up the current “gaps” in the Cal Grant system, such as the provision limiting the number of freshmen students at first-year schools eligible for a Cal Grant B tuition and fee award. • If the Commission has had adequate time to review such a proposal and endorses it at the June 2018 meeting, staff would propose statutory language to the Legislature.

Stage Three: The 2019-2020 Legislative Session and Budget Years

The TCF report recommends that California adopt a substantial overhaul of the current financial aid system, moving from a system where Cal Grants primarily cover tuition and eligibility is determined by income and asset ceilings to a more holistic system addressing COA, and determined instead by unmet need according to Expected Family Contribution (EFC).

While staff feels that there is policy merit to such a model, remaking California financial aid on this scale requires extensive discussions with policymakers and stakeholders, and deeper analyses of the likely impact to students, institutions, and to the State. Staff and Commission liaisons could lead these discussions throughout the remainder of 2018 and into 2019, bringing any comprehensive reform proposals to the Commission for sufficient deliberation and a vote sometime in 2019. If the Commission chooses to endorse any major reforms, they would be introduced as statutory or budget proposals in 2019-2020.

Recommendation: • Direct staff, in conjunction with assigned Commission liaisons, to further study the impact of moving to a financial aid model along the lines of the TCF recommendations, including, but not limited to, the following elements: o Using students’ unmet need after calculating EFC, rather than a fixed income and asset ceiling, to determine eligibility for, and award amount of, Cal Grants o Setting a fixed “affordability target,” including a self-help expectation, as part of the Cal Grant model o Remaking Cal Grant as an entitlement program available to all California students attending an eligible institution, regardless of GPA, age, or time out of high school o Creating a model whereby institutional aid and State grant aid work together to provide support for students on a sliding scale according to their financial need o Considering the merits and costs of imposing new accountability standards on private institutions for participating in State financial aid o The feasibility of eliminating or modifying current Cal Grant application deadlines • Staff will present to Commissioners at a future meeting a proposal for a comprehensive financial aid reform that meets the requirements directed by the Legislature (consolidation and further addressing cost of attendance) and considers these recommendations in the TCF report Attachment 1.2

• The Commission will have the opportunity to fully consider this proposal and, if endorsed, staff will present budget and statutory changes to the Legislature to move to this model AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 3, 2018 california legislature—2017–18 regular session

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2621

Introduced by Assembly Member Medina

February 15, 2018

An act to amend add and repeal Section 66011 of 70901.3 of the Education Code, relating to postsecondary education.

legislative counsel’s digest AB 2621, as amended, Medina. Postsecondary education: California Community Colleges. Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law establishes community college districts throughout the state, and authorizes them to provide instruction at the campuses they operate. This bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Of®ce to conduct a study on the feasibility of creating an exclusively online community college and to report its ®ndings to the Legislature on or before July 1, 2019. Existing law, the Donahoe Higher Education Act, among other things, declares the policy of the Legislature that all resident applicants to California institutions of public higher education, who are determined to be quali®ed by law or by admission standards established by the respective governing boards, should be admitted to a district of the California Community Colleges, the California State University, or the University of California.

AB 2621 Ð 2 Ð

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to this provision relating to its references to the California Community Colleges and to community college districts and their governing boards. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

line 1 SECTION 1. Section 70901.3 is added to the Education Code, line 2 to read: line 3 70901.3. (a) The Legislative Analyst©s Of®ce shall conduct a line 4 study on the feasibility of creating an exclusively online community line 5 college, and on or before July 1, 2019, shall report its ®ndings to line 6 the Legislature. The report shall include, but not necessarily be line 7 limited to, all of the following: line 8 (1) The types of courses that the online community college line 9 should offer. line 10 (2) The composition and educational requirements of the faculty line 11 who would teach the courses identi®ed pursuant to paragraph (1). line 12 (3) The appropriate governing body for the online community line 13 college. line 14 (4) The appropriate role of the Of®ce of the Chancellor of the line 15 California Community Colleges and the Board of Governors of line 16 the California Community Colleges. line 17 (5) What an accreditation plan should entail for the online line 18 community college. line 19 (6) What metrics for success and data gathering should be line 20 required and collected by the online community college. line 21 (7) What an outreach plan to potential students should entail line 22 for the online community college. line 23 (b) (1) A report submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be line 24 submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government line 25 Code. line 26 (2) Pursuant to Section 10231.5 of the Government Code, this line 27 section shall be repealed on January 1, 2023. line 28 SECTION 1. Section 66011 of the Education Code is amended line 29 to read: line 30 66011. (a) It is the policy of the Legislature that all resident line 31 applicants to California institutions of public higher education, line 32 who are determined to be quali®ed by law or by admission

Ð 3 Ð AB 2621 line 1 standards established by the respective governing boards, should line 2 be admitted to either (1) a community college district, in line 3 accordance with Section 76000, (2) the California State University, line 4 or (3) the University of California. line 5 (b) As used in this part, ªgoverning boardsº means the governing line 6 boards of community college districts and the Board of Governors line 7 of the California Community Colleges, the Trustees of the line 8 California State University, and the Regents of the University of line 9 California.

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 3, 2018 california legislature—2017–18 regular session

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2767

Introduced by Assembly Member Medina

February 16, 2018

An act to amend Section 70901 of the Education Code, relating to postsecondary education.

legislative counsel’s digest AB 2767, as amended, Medina. Community colleges. California Community Colleges: funding formula: study. Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. Existing law authorizes the establishment of community college districts under the administration of community college governing boards, and authorizes these districts to provide instruction at community college campuses throughout the state. Existing law requires the board of governors to develop criteria and standards, in accordance with speci®ed statewide minimum requirements, for the purposes of making the annual budget request for the California Community Colleges to the Governor and the Legislature, and allocating state general apportionment revenues. This bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Of®ce to conduct a study of the funding formula used to allocate state apportionments by the California Community Colleges for the 2017±18 ®scal year. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Of®ce to submit a report to the Legislature, on or before July 1, 2019, containing its ®ndings from the study and providing recommendations as to various funding

AB 2767 Ð 2 Ð

formula models the Legislature may wish to adopt for use by the California Community Colleges. Existing law requires the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges to provide leadership and direction in the continuing development of the California Community Colleges as an integral and effective element in the structure of public higher education in the state. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to this law. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

line 1 SECTION 1. (a) The Legislative Analyst's Of®ce shall conduct line 2 a study of the funding formula used to allocate state line 3 apportionments by the California Community Colleges for the line 4 2017±18 ®scal year. line 5 (b) On or before July 1, 2019, the Legislative Analyst's Of®ce line 6 shall submit a report to the Legislature, consistent with Section line 7 9795 of the Government Code, containing its ®ndings from the line 8 study and providing recommendations as to various funding line 9 formula models the Legislature may wish to adopt for use by the line 10 California Community Colleges. line 11 SECTION 1. Section 70901 of the Education Code is amended line 12 to read: line 13 70901. (a) The Board of Governors of the California line 14 Community Colleges shall provide leadership and direction in the line 15 continuing development of the California Community Colleges as line 16 an integral and effective element in the structure of public higher line 17 education in the state. The work of the board of governors shall at line 18 all times be directed to maintaining and continuing, to the line 19 maximum degree permissible, local authority and control in the line 20 administration of the California Community Colleges. line 21 (b) Subject to, and in furtherance of, subdivision (a), and in line 22 consultation with community college districts and other interested line 23 parties as speci®ed in subdivision (e), the board of governors shall line 24 provide general supervision over community college districts, and line 25 shall, in furtherance of those purposes, perform the following line 26 functions:

Ð 3 Ð AB 2767

line 1 (1) Establish minimum standards as required by law, including, line 2 but not limited to, all of the following: line 3 (A) Minimum standards to govern student academic standards line 4 relating to graduation requirements and probation, dismissal, and line 5 readmission policies. line 6 (B) Minimum standards for the employment of academic and line 7 administrative staff in community colleges. line 8 (C) Minimum standards for the formation of community colleges line 9 and districts. line 10 (D) Minimum standards for credit and noncredit classes. line 11 (E) Minimum standards governing procedures established by line 12 governing boards of community college districts to ensure faculty, line 13 staff, and students the right to participate effectively in district and line 14 college governance, and the opportunity to express their opinions line 15 at the campus level and to ensure that these opinions are given line 16 every reasonable consideration, and the right of academic senates line 17 to assume primary responsibility for making recommendations in line 18 the areas of curriculum and academic standards. line 19 (2) Evaluate and issue annual reports on the ®scal and line 20 educational effectiveness of community college districts according line 21 to outcome measures cooperatively developed with those districts, line 22 and provide assistance when districts encounter severe management line 23 dif®culties. line 24 (3) Conduct necessary systemwide research on community line 25 colleges, and provide appropriate information services, including, line 26 but not limited to, de®nitions for the purpose of uniform reporting, line 27 collection, compilation, and analysis of data for effective planning line 28 and coordination, and dissemination of information. line 29 (4) (A) Provide representation, advocacy, and accountability line 30 for the California Community Colleges before state and national line 31 legislative and executive agencies. line 32 (B) In order to wholly engage in the recognition review process line 33 of an accrediting agency pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section line 34 72208, conduct a survey of the community colleges, including line 35 consultation with representatives of both faculty and classi®ed line 36 personnel, to develop a report to be transmitted to the United States line 37 Department of Education and the National Advisory Committee line 38 on Institutional Quality and Integrity that re¯ects a systemwide line 39 evaluation of the regional accrediting agency based on the criteria line 40 used to determine an accreditor's status.

AB 2767 Ð 4 Ð

line 1 (5) (A) Administer state support programs, both operational line 2 and capital outlay, and those federally supported programs for line 3 which the board of governors has responsibility pursuant to state line 4 or federal law. In so doing, the board of governors shall do all of line 5 the following: line 6 (i) (I) Annually prepare and adopt a proposed budget for the line 7 California Community Colleges. The proposed budget shall, at a line 8 minimum, identify the total revenue needs for serving educational line 9 needs within the mission, the amount to be expended for the state line 10 general apportionment, the amounts requested for various line 11 categorical programs established by law, the amounts requested line 12 for new programs and budget improvements, and the amount line 13 requested for systemwide administration. line 14 (II) The proposed budget for the California Community Colleges line 15 shall be submitted to the Department of Finance in accordance line 16 with established timelines for development of the annual Budget line 17 Bill. line 18 (ii) To the extent authorized by law, establish the method for line 19 determining and allocating the state general apportionment. line 20 (iii) Establish space and utilization standards for facility planning line 21 in order to determine eligibility for state funds for construction line 22 purposes. line 23 (B) The board of governors may enter into a direct contract with line 24 the Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges for line 25 the purpose of supporting statewide initiatives, projects, and line 26 programs within the purview of the Academic Senate for the line 27 California Community Colleges. If the board of governors elects line 28 to enter into a direct contract with the Academic Senate for the line 29 California Community Colleges, the contract shall specify the line 30 objectives and the expected outcomes of the contract. line 31 (6) (A) Establish minimum conditions entitling districts to line 32 receive state aid for support of community colleges. In so doing, line 33 the board of governors shall establish and carry out a periodic line 34 review of each community college district to determine whether line 35 it has met the minimum conditions prescribed by the board of line 36 governors. line 37 (B) In determining whether a community college district satis®es line 38 the minimum conditions established pursuant to this section, the line 39 board of governors shall review the regional accreditation status line 40 of the community colleges within that district.

Ð 5 Ð AB 2767

line 1 (7) Coordinate and encourage interdistrict, regional, and line 2 statewide development of community college programs, facilities, line 3 and services. line 4 (8) Facilitate articulation with other segments of higher line 5 education with secondary education. line 6 (9) Review and approve comprehensive plans for each line 7 community college district. The plans shall be submitted to the line 8 board of governors by the governing board of each community line 9 college district. line 10 (10) Review and approve all educational programs offered by line 11 community college districts and all courses that are not offered as line 12 part of an educational program approved by the board of governors. line 13 (11) Exercise general supervision over the formation of new line 14 community college districts and the reorganization of existing line 15 community college districts, including the approval or disapproval line 16 of plans therefor. line 17 (12) Notwithstanding any other law, be solely responsible for line 18 establishing, maintaining, revising, and updating, as necessary, line 19 the uniform budgeting and accounting structures and procedures line 20 for the California Community Colleges. line 21 (13) Establish policies regarding interdistrict attendance of line 22 students. line 23 (14) Advise and assist governing boards of community college line 24 districts on the implementation and interpretation of state and line 25 federal laws affecting community colleges. line 26 (15) Contract for the procurement of goods and services, as line 27 necessary. line 28 (16) Carry out other functions as expressly provided by law. line 29 (c) Subject to, and in furtherance of, subdivision (a), the board line 30 of governors shall have full authority to adopt rules and regulations line 31 necessary and proper to execute the functions speci®ed in this line 32 section as well as other functions that the board of governors is line 33 expressly authorized by statute to regulate. line 34 (d) Wherever in this section or any other statute a power is line 35 vested in the board of governors, the board of governors, by a line 36 majority vote, may adopt a rule delegating that power to the line 37 chancellor, or any of®cer, employee, or committee of the California line 38 Community Colleges, or community college district, as the board line 39 of governors may designate. However, the board of governors line 40 shall not delegate any power that is expressly made nondelegable

AB 2767 Ð 6 Ð

line 1 by statute. Any rule delegating power shall prescribe the limits of line 2 delegation. line 3 (e) In performing the functions speci®ed in this section, the line 4 board of governors shall establish and carry out a process for line 5 consultation with institutional representatives of community college line 6 districts so as to ensure their participation in the development and line 7 review of policy proposals. The consultation process shall also line 8 afford community college organizations, as well as interested line 9 individuals and parties, an opportunity to review and comment on line 10 proposed policy before it is adopted by the board of governors.

The CEO Funding Formula Workgroup was tasked by Chancellor Oakley with providing recommendations in response Access, to the Governor’s January funding formula proposal. The Workgroup urges consideration of the following principles in the development of a new funding formula: Equity, ● Recognize the necessity of building institutional capacity to improve student outcomes by increasing community college base funding priorto implementation of a and new funding formula; ● Integrate the enrollment and academic Success progress of economically disadvantaged populationswith a formula that balances access, equity, and success for all students; for All ● Provide two years of program transition funding at a new, higher base level whilethe formula’s metrics are analyzed and refined to ensure theirefficacy in advancing student equity, inclusion, and success;

● Adequately define equity metrics to most accurately represent all economically disadvantaged students (e.g. low income, CalWORKs, students with disabilities, foster youth, AB 540)and to identifytheir respective needs for Guided Pathways;

● Enhance funding predictability with a three- year average for base funding and by assigningSummer FTE to the fiscal year in which instruction was held;

● Progressively phase out transition funding to fully implement access, equity, and success metrics by 2025;

● Recognize the diversity of regional and local factors;

● Establish a funding formula oversight Community council to conduct annual analyses and to make recommendations for adjustments College Funding that advance equity-minded student success Formula Principles through improved fiscal stewardship.

CA LATINO LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS UNVEILS 2018 PRIORITY LEGISLATION April 04, 2018

SACRAMENTO –Senator Ben Hueso (D-San Diego) and Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair and Vice Chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, today announced the Latino Caucus’ 2018 policy priorities and priority legislation.

“This year, more than ever, we are fighting hard to ensure all Californians have an opportunity to thrive and succeed.” said Senator Hueso. “While Washington DC is playing games with people’s lives and trying to take us backwards, in California we are working to improve educational opportunities, protect hard working and law-abiding immigrants, clean our air and water, increase access to quality health care and good paying jobs, protect our veterans and increase affordable housing. This year we have identified twenty bills as legislative priorities and we have updated our policy priorities to reflect the current state of affairs.”

“Our legislative focus this year is to protect the rights and improve the lives of all Californians and all California communities,” added Assemblywoman Gonzalez Fletcher. “The Latino Caucus is committed to policy priorities that make things better for all of us who live in this great state.” Members voted to declare the following twenty bills as the Latino Caucus’ 2018 priority legislation:

 SB 946 (Lara) Safe Sidewalk Vending Act  SB 974 (Lara) Health4All Adults  SB 1108 (Hernandez) Protecting Access to Medi-Cal Coverage  SB 1155 (Hueso) Language Accessibility in Courts  AB 1037 (Limón) CA Dreamer Service Incentive Grant Program  AB 1786 (Cervantes) Articulation Agreements for California Veterans  AB 1862 (Santiago & Carrillo) Funding for TPS Immigration Services  AB 1877 (Limón) Emergency Communication Translation  AB 1885 (E. Garcia) CA Resident Worker Program & Economic Stabilization Act  AB 1942 (Santiago) Earned Income Tax Credit  AB 2015 (Reyes) Assisting Students with FAFSA and Dream Act Applications  AB 2079 (Gonzalez Fletcher) Sexual Harassment Prevention for Janitorial Workers  AB 2372 (Gloria) CA’s Sustainable and Affordable (CASA) Housing Act  AB 2477 (Rubio & Low) Dream Resource Liaisons  AB 2514 (Thurmond) Grant Program for Dual Language Instruction  AB 2597 (Arambula) Programs in Medical Education (PRIME)  AB 2772 (Medina) Ethnic Studies  AB 2885 (Rodriguez) Zero Emission Vehicles Rebates in Disadvantaged Communities  AB 2887 (Aguiar-Curry) Farmworker Housing Centers  AB 3022 (Gonzalez Fletcher) Retroactive High School Diplomas for Deported Pupils

CA Legislative Black Caucus Unveils 2018 Priority Legislation

March 15, 2018 Sacramento – The California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC) proudly announce its CLBC 2018 legislative and budget priorities. “The needs, desires, and priorities of Black Californians are reflected in the legislation the Caucus is leading this year,” said CLBC Chair, Chris Holden (AD 41). “The CLBC is proclaiming victories in education, economic advancement, and overall quality of life. I am committed to the Caucus’ objectives of social, economic, and educational justice.” “I am currently working on legislation to reverse the damaging effects of some of our state’s outdated, overly punitive, and ineffective sentencing laws, which have disproportionately impacted generations of African Americans,” said CLBC’s Second Vice Chair, Senator Steven Bradford (SD 35). “Similarly, it is a priority of mine to ensure that those returning to our communities are not set-up for failure and have a pathway to become contributing members of society,” continued Bradford. “As Californians have overwhelmingly voted to legalize the recreational use of cannabis, it is important to me that this burgeoning industry reflects the diversity of California, and in particular, includes those who have fallen victim to our nation’s failed war on drugs. I look forward to announcing legislation related to equity in the cannabis industry soon.” “Our legislative priorities reinforce our belief that helping Blacks in California will undoubtedly end up helping all Californians,” added Assemblywoman Dr. Shirley Weber (AD 79), First Vice-Chair of the Caucus. “CLBC is committed to shaping our state’s public policy agenda for the betterment of everyone in our communities across the state.” The legislative package includes Assembly Bill 2635 by Assemblymember Weber which adds African Americans to the local control funding formula (LCFF). By adding this subgroup to the LCFF, it is projected that $360 million will be redirected to schools that serve Black students. Adding this subgroup has a great budgetary demand which qualifies this bill for both budgetary and legislative priority. Members voted unanimously to champion the following bills and budget asks which make up the CLBC’s 2018 legislative package. Budget Priorities AB-2635 Weber: Education finance: local control funding formula: supplemental grants: lowest performing pupil subgroup or subgroups. California African American Museum – $6,775,000; $6.45 Million (One Time), $325,000 (Ongoing) Legislative Priorities AB-2635 Weber: Education finance: local control funding formula: supplemental grants: lowest performing pupil subgroup or subgroups. AB-2918 Holden: Vehicles: Driver’s Handbook SB-982 Mitchell: CalWORKS Grants Endorsed Bills • AB-2289 Weber: Pupil Rights: Pregnant and Parenting Pupils • AB-2550 Weber: CA Dignity Act • AB-1940 McCarty: Parole: Reintegration Credits • AB-1488 Thurmond: County Juvenile Transition Centers • AB-1916 Cooper: Civil Service: Personnel Classification Plan: Salary Equalization • AB-3046 Gipson: Foster care: rights • AB-3115 Gipson: Prisoners: Civic Education • AB-1892 Jones-Sawyer: CalFresh • AB-3039 Holden: Occupational Licensing for the Previously Incarcerated • AB-2747 Holden: College Athlete Protection • AB-2444 Burke: Pupil Health: Eye and Vision Health • ACR-177 Jones-Sawyer: Intergenerational Trauma: Epigenetics • SB-439 Mitchell: Jurisdiction of Juvenile Court

API Legislative Caucus Policy Priorities 2018

The California Asian Pacific Islander (API) Legislative Caucus represents and advocates for the interests of the diverse Asian & Pacific Islander American (APIA) communities throughout California. Furthermore, it seeks to increase APIA participation and representation in all levels of government.

The API Legislative Caucus established the following policy priorities to address issues important to the Asian & Pacific Islander American community.

EDUCATION

SB 892 (Pan) – Lunar New Year SB 892 establishes a formal statewide recognition for Lunar New Year by requiring the Governor to issue an annual proclamation.

Lunar New Year is celebrated by over 2.5 million Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese residents in California. The celebration of the Lunar New Year in communities throughout California illustrates the state’s rich cultural history and commitment to racial, religious and cultural diversity. SB 892 is a step forward in recognizing the importance of the contributions made by API communities.

AB 2291 (Chiu) – Campus Climate AB 2291 requires schools to update school safety plans with information and training for educators to address discrimination and harassment.

Sikh and Muslim students indicate that they have experienced some form of bullying, intimidation, verbal or physical harassment at more than twice the rate of other students. Those surveyed often cited the lack of adequate response and training on the part of educators to address these issues. AB 2292 would ensure that teachers and other school employees are given the tools they need to adequately address bullying on school campuses.

AB 1248 (Gloria) – Cultural Diversity at Graduation Ceremonies AB 1248 protects a pupil’s right to wear religious, ceremonial, or cultural adornments at a school graduation ceremony.

A cultural adornment is an accessory work to represent a spiritual, religious, or ceremonial tradition. However, some California students have been prevented from wearing cultural adornments at graduation ceremonies. California is a diverse state made brighter by the multitude of cultures and religious that composes it. AB 1248 ensures that a student’s right to celebrate their cultural or religious tradition is protected.

API Legislative Caucus Policy Priorities 2018 (rev. 3/27/18) 1

AB 2808 (Muratsuchi) – Increasing Local Control Funding Formula Targets AB 2808 increases K-12 spending to ensure our schools receive the needed funding to promote student success.

Though K-12 public education has increased since the Great Recession, many school districts struggle to meet fixed cost. More than 12% of California’s students in public schools identify as Asian American or Pacific Islander. AB 2808 will assist API students to ensure they receive the resources to achieve education equity.

HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH

SB 968 (Pan) – Higher Education Mental Health Ratio SB 968 requires the Trustees of the CSU, the governing board of each CA Community College district and the governing body of each independent institution of higher education that is a qualifying institution, and request the Regents of the UC, to hire one full-time equivalent mental health counselor per 1,000 students at each of their respective campuses to the fullest extent consistent with state and federal law.

Research has found that Asian American college students have higher rates of suicidal thoughts than their White peers. Among women aged 15-24, Asian Americans have a suicide death rate that is 30 percent higher than their White counterparts. SB 968 is an important measure to increase access to mental health services for a vulnerable population.

IMMIGRATION

AB 2477 (Rubio/Low)- DREAM Resource Liaison AB 2477 requires the California Community Colleges and the California State Universities and requests the Universities of California to have a DREAM Resource Liaison on their campuses.

Having such liaisons on school campuses would allow all students to feel safe in their educational journeys and provide them resources in order to reach their full potential. Every year, about 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high schools in the United States. In 2016, the Pew Research Center and the Migration Policy Center reported that Asians are the fasted growing undocumented population, many of them college-aged. AB 2477 provides our undocumented students with the resources to feel safe in their place of education and to thrive.

LANGUAGE ACCESS

AB 1909 (Nazarian) – Threshold Language Translation for Providers of IHSS AB 1909 requires the CA Department of Social Services to translate all written notices and web content intended for In Home Supportive Service (IHSS) providers into the state threshold languages: English, Spanish, Chinese and Armenian.

Statewide, 9,000 IHSS providers speak Chinese and almost 17,000 speak Armenian. Currently, approximately 40 percent of providers across the state receive program instructions, timesheets, tax notices, forms, and other important materials in a language they do not primarily read or speak. If a provider is unable to understand the already complicated IHSS rules, it may jeopardize their pay and, ultimately, their job. AB 1909 ensures that all IHSS providers would be able to access the necessary information they need to do their job in their primary language.

AB 2299 (Chu) – Ensuring Readability of Consumer Notices & Education Materials AB 2299 ensures that materials sent to non-English speakers regarding Medi-Cal benefits are in their language and readable to eliminate language barriers to public programs.

API Legislative Caucus Policy Priorities 2018 (rev. 3/27/18) 2

Currently, the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) requires Medi-Cal managed care plans to apply reading level and readability requirements to health education materials produced in English. However, Medi-Cal managed care plans do not apply the same reading level and readability requirements to all consumer materials or to materials translated into threshold languages. A significant number of Medi-Cal managed care plan members speak a language other than English as their primary language. In comparison with their English-speaking counterparts, Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals are more likely to have low literacy levels and/or low health literacy. This may limit individuals’ ability to navigate a complex health system, which can lead to lower quality health care and poor healthcare outcomes. AB 2299 will improve access for all Medi-Cal recipients to ensure fair access to benefits.

PUBLIC SAFETY

AB 2034 (Kalra) – Human Trafficking Awareness Training: Transit Employees AB 2034 requires transit employees in bus, train or light rail operations to undergo human trafficking awareness training by Jan 2020. Additionally requires Department of Justice to develop guidelines for transit operations to assist in their training.

California has the highest number of reported human trafficking cases in the country, and many human trafficking victims are hidden in plain sight along our state's transportation routes. The bill is modeled after a successful program by the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in collaboration with the South Bay Coalition to End Human Trafficking. In 2017, the Polaris hotline reported 23% of human trafficking survivors were API. AB 2034 equips transit operators and employees on the front-line of defense with the training to identify the signs of human trafficking. By doing so, suspected acts of human trafficking can be properly reported and, if needed, acted upon by law enforcement to prevent further harm to the victim.

SMALL BUSINESS

AB 2184 (Chiu) – Immigrant Business Inclusion Act AB 2184 clarifies requirements for issuing business licenses to enhance entrepreneurship and reduce barriers to economic opportunity in California. Under the provisions of the bill, local governments would use Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers as an alternative to Social Security Numbers on business permits for non-professional businesses.

In a state where 1 in 3 small business owners are immigrants, those without Social Security Numbers (SSN) could be prevented from applying from business licenses in more than 11 counties. California has led the nation in ensuring that immigrants are fully integrated into the economy and well-being of our state. Asian American immigration into the United States often surpasses the level of immigration for countries like Mexico, and AB 2184 is vital to ensure that residents have the means to succeed in California.

AB 2335 (Ting) – Corner Stores AB 2335 requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to administer the Nutrition Incentive Matching Program and to award grants to the City of Los Angeles and the City and County of San Francisco to provide grant funds to small businesses and corner stores that are located in food deserts.

Food deserts are neighborhoods where residents have low access to supermarkets. Typically these neighborhoods are low-income urban areas, and residents have no choice, but to get their groceries from corner stores, many of which do not stock fresh produce. Many corner stores are small, locally-owned businesses that cannot afford to purchase additional refrigeration units. API

API Legislative Caucus Policy Priorities 2018 (rev. 3/27/18) 3

communities in food deserts are particularly vulnerable such as in LA’s Filipinotown where there are no supermarkets. AB 2335 would create the Nutrition Incentive Program which would provide grant incentives to corner stores and other small-scale stores with a limited selection of food products to purchase energy efficient refrigeration.

WORKER RIGHTS AND PROTECTION

AB 1761 (Muratsuchi) – Hotel Housekeeper Protection Act AB 1761 protects hotel employees from violent and sexual assaults and harassment from hotel guests by requiring hotel employers to provide a panic button to their employees in order to summon assistance in an emergency situation. Hotel employees deserve to feel safe when they are doing their job, and hotel maids often work in dangerous situations that put them at risk of sexual assault or harassment.

Many APIs work in the hotel service industry as house keepers and maids. In fact, today Black, Latina and Asian women comprise 40 percent or more of the nation’s maids, nannies, and home health-care aides. AB 1761 will protect APIs in the hotel from sexual harassment and sexual assault.

AB 1913 (Kalra) – Foreign Labor Contractors AB 193 requires all foreign labor contractors to register with the CA Labor Commissioner, not only those foreign labor contractors who recruit workers through the H-2B visa category. This is an important technical fix to SB 477 (Steinberg). This would apply important protections and remedies for those foreign workers solicited and recruited to work temporarily in CA to protect them from human trafficking and other labor code violations.

A 2017 report on Human Trafficking of Domestic Workers in the United States revealed that API women are especially at risk for human trafficking and exploitation. By covering all foreign labor contractors, AB 1913 will ensure that all foreign workers are protected against wage theft, human trafficking, and other worker abuses – abuses that impact many vulnerable API populations.

AB 2775 (Kalra) – Professional Cosmetics Ingredients Listing AB 2775 establishes label parity with retail cosmetic products by requiring manufacturers of professional cosmetic products to label products with chemicals that pose a health risk.

This bill elevates the labeling standard of professional cosmetic products to that of retail cosmetic products. By requiring manufacturers to list ingredients on the labels of all professional cosmetic products, individuals and the beauty salon industry can take steps to avoid or limit exposure to hazardous chemicals. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Vietnamese immigrants dominate the nail industry in California, leaving them disproportionately vulnerable to harmful substances in cosmetic products. AB 2775 will prevent the prevalence of adverse health impacts associated with these hazardous chemicals.

For questions about the API Legislative Caucus’ Budget and Legislative priorities, please contact Cat Nou, API Legislative Caucus Chief Consultant, at (916) 319-3686 or [email protected].

API Legislative Caucus Policy Priorities 2018 (rev. 3/27/18) 4

Los Angeles Community College District

Heard in Policy Committee

AB 310 (Medina D) Part-time faculty office hours. Introduced: 2/6/2017 Status: 1/29/2018-Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. Location: 1/29/2018-S. DESK Summary: Would require each community college district to report, on or before August 15 of each year, the total part-time faculty office hours paid divided by the total part-time faculty office hours taught during the prior fiscal year and post this information on its Internet Web site. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

AB 809 (Quirk-Silva D) Veterans: public postsecondary education: veterans’ priority registration for enrollment. Introduced: 2/15/2017 Last Amend: 3/23/2017 Status: 1/29/2018-Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. Location: 1/29/2018-S. DESK Summary: Current law also requires each community college district that administers a priority enrollment system to grant priority registration for enrollment to students in the California Community College Extended Opportunity Programs and Services and to disabled students, as defined. This bill would require that the priority registration for enrollment for members and former members of the Armed Forces of the United States and for members and former members of the State Military Reserve that is required by existing law, as described above, be applied notwithstanding any other law.

AB 1767 (Cervantes D) California Kickstart My Future Loan Forgiveness Program. Introduced: 1/4/2018 Last Amend: 2/22/2018 Status: 4/4/2018-In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. Location: 4/4/2018-A. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE Summary: Would establish the California Kickstart My Future Loan Forgiveness Program, under the administration of the Student Aid Commission, to provide student loan forgiveness awards for the purpose of alleviating the burden of federal student loan debt for recent graduates meeting specified requirements. The bill would, subject to an available and sufficient appropriation, authorize an eligible applicant to receive a student loan forgiveness award equal to 100% of his or her monthly federal income-driven repayment plan payments for 24 months of repayment under the federal program.

AB 1803 (Choi R) Postsecondary education: career placement and job search services for graduates. Introduced: 1/10/2018 Status: 4/11/2018-In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. Location: 4/11/2018-A. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE Summary: Would require a public or private institution of higher education that offers a baccalaureate degree program, provides career placement and job search services to students, and receives state funds for student financial assistance to provide career placement and job search services to a person for five years after the person receives a baccalaureate degree at the institution.

AB 1805 (Irwin D) Seymour-Campbell Student Success Act of 2012: matriculation: assessment and placement. Introduced: 1/10/2018 Last Amend: 4/5/2018 Status: 4/9/2018-Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 4/5/2018-A. APPR. Summary: Would require a community college to inform students of their rights to access transfer-level coursework and of the multiple measures placement policies developed by the community college, as provided. The bill would require a community college to annually report to the Office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges the community college’s placement policies and placement results, and would require a community college to publicly post its placement results. The bill would require its provisions to be implemented by a specified date. To the extent the bill would impose additional duties on community college districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

AB 1858 (Calderon D) Student financial aid: Financial Aid Shopping Sheet.

Page 1/14 Introduced: 1/10/2018 Status: 4/4/2018-In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. Location: 4/4/2018-A. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE Summary: Would add to the Donahoe Higher Education Act a provision that would require, by January 1, 2020, and permanently thereafter, each campus of the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, and each independent institution of higher education to use the Financial Aid Shopping Sheet as developed by the United States Department of Education or a successor document identified by the Student Aid Commission to inform students or potential students about financial aid award packages.

AB 1887 (Medina D) Public education governance: service on boards and commissions. Introduced: 1/18/2018 Last Amend: 3/15/2018 Status: 3/19/2018-Re-referred to Com. on ED. Location: 3/15/2018-A. ED. Summary: Current law provides that a person is incapable of holding a civil office if, at the time of his or her election or appointment, he or she is not 18 years of age and a citizen of the state. This bill would authorize any pupil attending a California public secondary school who is under the age of 18 years to serve on any board or commission that includes members who are pupils or minors and is established under specified portions of the Education Code that relate to public elementary and secondary education and that includes members who are pupils or minors.

AB 1895 (Calderon D) California DREAM Loan Program: repayment, deferment, and forbearance. Introduced: 1/18/2018 Last Amend: 3/15/2018 Status: 3/19/2018-Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 3/15/2018-A. APPR. Summary: The California DREAM Loan Program provides that a student attending a participating campus of the University of California or California State University may receive a loan, referred to as a DREAM loan, through the program if the student satisfies specified requirements, including a requirement that the student be exempt from paying nonresident tuition or meet equivalent requirements adopted by the Regents of the University of California. This bill would require a participating campus, on or before January 1, 2020, to adopt procedures allowing a borrower to select an income-based repayment plan for the repayment of a DREAM loan, as specified.

AB 1935 (Irwin D) Community colleges: tutoring. Introduced: 1/24/2018 Last Amend: 4/5/2018 Status: 4/9/2018-Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 4/5/2018-A. APPR. Summary: Under current law, community college districts throughout the state have established campuses where they provide instruction to students. Current law establishes a system through which state funds are apportioned to community college districts based on specified formulas. A provision of existing law identifies the noncredit community college courses and classes that are eligible for state apportionment funding. This bill would provide that supervised tutoring for basic skills, and for degree- applicable and transfer-level courses, as authorized pursuant to regulations adopted by the board of governors by July 31, 2019, is eligible for state apportionment funding.

AB 1936 (Low D) Postsecondary education: Office of Higher Education Performance and Accountability. Introduced: 1/25/2018 Status: 4/4/2018-In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. Location: 4/4/2018-A. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE Summary: Would establish the Office of Higher Education Performance and Accountability as the statewide postsecondary education coordination and planning entity. The bill would provide for the appointment by the Governor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the membership of the Senate, of an executive director of the office. The bill would establish an 8-member advisory board for the purpose of examining, and making recommendations to, the office regarding the functions and operations of the office and reviewing and commenting on any recommendations made by the office to the Governor and the Legislature, among other specified duties.

AB 1961 (Choi R) Postsecondary education: student housing and meal plans. Introduced: 1/30/2018 Last Amend: 3/15/2018 Status: 3/19/2018-Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 3/19/2018-A. APPR. Summary: Would require each institution of higher education receiving state funds for student financial assistance to, as a condition of receipt of the funds, separately list the cost of institutionally Page 2/14 operated housing and meal plans on all Internet Web sites and documents it provides to students for purposes of advertising or otherwise displaying the student costs associated with institutionally operated housing. The bill would prohibit each of these institutions, as a condition of receipt of the funds, from requiring a student to have a campus meal plan in order to live in institutionally operated housing.

AB 2012 (Medina D) School and community college employees: parental leave. Introduced: 2/1/2018 Status: 4/4/2018-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on ED. (Ayes 9. Noes 3.) (April 3). Re- referred to Com. on ED. Location: 4/3/2018-A. ED. Summary: Would require, regardless of the type of differential pay system used by a school district or community college district, a person employed in a position requiring certification qualifications and a person employed in an academic position to receive no less than 50% of his or her regular salary for the remaining portion of the 12-workweek period of parental leave. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

AB 2049 (Gonzalez Fletcher D) Classified school and community college employees: payroll deductions for employee organization dues. Introduced: 2/6/2018 Last Amend: 3/19/2018 Status: 4/4/2018-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HIGHER ED. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (April 4). Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. Location: 4/4/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Would require the governing board of a school district, and the governing board of a community college district, when drawing an order for the salary or wage payment due to a classified employee of the school district or community college district to, without charge, reduce the order by the amount that it has been requested in a revocable written authorization by an employee who is a member of the bargaining unit to deduct for the payment of dues in, or for any other service provided by, any bona fide employee organization. The bill would require the revocability of one of these authorizations to be determined by its terms.

AB 2081 (Melendez R) Postsecondary education: Campus Free Speech Act. Introduced: 2/7/2018 Status: 4/3/2018-In committee: Set, first hearing. Failed passage. Location: 4/3/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Would establish the Campus Free Speech Act, which would, among other things, require the appropriate governing board or body of each higher education institution, as defined, to develop and adopt a policy on free expression that contains specified components. The act would require that the policy supersede any provisions in the policies and regulations of the institution that restrict speech on campus and are inconsistent with the policy, and would require the appropriate governing board or body of the institution to remove or revise the provisions to ensure compatibility with the policy.

AB 2160 (Thurmond D) Classified employees: school and community college districts: part-time playground positions. Introduced: 2/12/2018 Status: 4/4/2018-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HIGHER ED. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (April 4). Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. Location: 4/4/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: In a community college district not incorporating the merit system, current law requires the governing board of the community college district to employ persons for positions that are not academic positions, which are known as the classified service. Current law, for purposes of this provision, exempts part-time playground positions from the classified service. This bill would delete the above-described provisions exempting part-time playground positions from the classified service, thereby making those positions part of the classified service.

AB 2210 (McCarty D) Public postsecondary education: holders of certain special immigrant visas. Introduced: 2/12/2018 Last Amend: 3/15/2018 Status: 4/4/2018-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (April 3). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 4/3/2018-A. APPR. Summary: Current law exempts students who have been granted special immigrant visas pursuant to a specified federal statute, or are refugees admitted to the United States under a specified federal statute, and who, upon entering the United States, settled in California, from paying nonresident tuition at the California Community Colleges. Current law authorizes a community college district to report a student, who is exempt from nonresident tuition under this provision and who is enrolled as a Page 3/14 student of that district, as a full-time equivalent student for apportionment purposes. This bill would exempt students granted special immigrant visas pursuant to an additional federal statute from paying nonresident tuition at the California Community Colleges.

AB 2220 (Bonta D) College Student Athlete Bill of Rights. Introduced: 2/12/2018 Last Amend: 4/10/2018 Status: 4/11/2018-Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. Location: 4/4/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Would require all intercollegiate athletic programs at private postsecondary educational institutions, independent institutions of higher education, or campuses of the University of California or the California State University that provide athletic scholarships for college student athletes to comply with the prescribed requirements. The bill would rename the Student Athlete Bill of Rights as the College Student Athlete Bill of Rights and would redesignate “student athlete” as “college student athlete” for purposes of the College Student Athlete Bill of Rights. The bill would delete the provisions requiring an institution to exclusively use revenue from media rights for intercollegiate athletics to defray certain costs accrued under the College Student Athlete Bill of Rights.

AB 2306 (Santiago D) Student financial aid: Cal Grant Program. Introduced: 2/13/2018 Status: 4/4/2018-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 2.) (April 3). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 4/3/2018-A. APPR. Summary: The Cal Grant Program prohibits an applicant from receiving one or a combination of program awards in excess of the amount equivalent to the award level for a total of a 4-year period of full-time attendance in an undergraduate program, except as provided. This bill would increase this generally applicable maximum for total Cal Grant awards to a community college applicant to the award level for a 6-year period of full-time attendance. The bill would provide that this 6-year period of Cal Grant eligibility shall carry over to any 4-year qualifying institution if the applicant transfers from a community college to a 4-year qualifying institution, but shall not exceed the 6-year maximum in total.

AB 2374 (Kiley R) Postsecondary education: Free Speech on Campus Act of 2018. Introduced: 2/14/2018 Last Amend: 3/15/2018 Status: 4/10/2018-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 10). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 4/10/2018-A. APPR. Summary: Would require a campus of the California Community Colleges or the California State University, and would request a campus of the University of California, to make and disseminate a free speech statement that affirms the importance of, and the campus’s commitment to promoting, freedom of expression. The bill would require those campuses to supplement that statement with educational programming, including, but not limited to, online resources. Because the bill would impose new duties on a campus of the California Community Colleges, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

AB 2391 (Harper R) Student health: identification cards: suicide prevention telephone numbers. Introduced: 2/14/2018 Last Amend: 4/5/2018 Status: 4/9/2018-Read second time. Ordered to third reading. Location: 4/9/2018-A. THIRD READING Summary: Would, commencing July 1, 2019,require a campus of the California Community Colleges or the California State University that issues student identification cards to, and would request a campus of the University of California or an independent institution of higher education that issues student identification cards to, include on the back of the student identification cards the telephone numbers for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and Crisis Text Line, or a local suicide prevention lifeline and crisis text line that the campus deems appropriate, and the campus police or security telephone number or, if the campus does not have a campus police or security telephone number, the local nonemergency telephone number, as provided.

AB 2477 (Rubio D) Student support services: Dream Resource Liaisons. Introduced: 2/14/2018 Status: 4/4/2018-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 1.) (April 3). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 4/3/2018-A. APPR. Summary: Would, commencing with the 2019–20 academic year, require the California Community Colleges and the California State University, and request the University of California, to designate a Dream Resource Liaison on each of their respective campuses, as specified, to assist students meeting specified requirements, including undocumented students, by streamlining access to all available Page 4/14 specified requirements, including undocumented students, by streamlining access to all available financial aid and academic opportunities for those students. By requiring community colleges to designate a Dream Resource Liaison, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

AB 2554 (Bonta D) Public postsecondary education: exemption from mandatory systemwide tuition and fees: surviving child or spouse of a federal firefighter. Introduced: 2/15/2018 Last Amend: 3/12/2018 Status: 4/4/2018-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (April 3). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 4/3/2018-A. APPR. Summary: Current law prohibits the Board of Directors of the Hastings College of the Law, the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, the Trustees of the California State University, and, if they adopt an appropriate resolution, the Regents of the University of California, from collecting mandatory systemwide tuition and fees from any surviving spouse or surviving child of a deceased person who was a resident of the state and employed by or contracting with a public agency, whose principal duties consisted of active law enforcement service or active fire suppression and prevention, and who died as a result of his or her duties, as specified. This bill would specify that the surviving child or spouse of a firefighter employed by the federal government whose duty assignment involved the performance of firefighting services in this state would also be eligible for exemption from mandatory systemwide tuition and fees under the provision described above.

AB 2563 (Patterson R) Student financial aid: Cal Grant B and Cal Grant C awards: financial aid book advance program. Introduced: 2/15/2018 Last Amend: 3/23/2018 Status: 4/4/2018-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (April 3). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 4/3/2018-A. APPR. Summary: Would, beginning with the 2019–20 academic year, require each Cal Grant participating institution, as a condition of its voluntary participation in the Cal Grant Program, to implement a financial aid book advance program that would provide a line of credit at the institution’s campus bookstore to students receiving Cal Grant B, Cal Grant C, federal Pell Grant, or other financial aid dispersed to the student for educational expenses for the purchase of books and educational materials before the Cal Grant B or Cal Grant C funds are disbursed to the student.

AB 2722 (Medina D) Student financial aid: California Military Department GI Bill Award Program. Introduced: 2/15/2018 Last Amend: 4/5/2018 Status: 4/9/2018-Re-referred to Com. on V.A. Location: 4/3/2018-A. V. A. Summary: Would change the name of the California National Guard Education Assistance Award Program to the California Military Department GI Bill Award Program. The bill would provide that the award could be used to obtain one baccalaureate, graduate, or doctoral degree if the person agrees to serve 2 years in the California National Guard or the California State Military Reserve, as specified. The bill would delete the obsolete provision requiring the submission of a report by the Legislative Analyst. The bill would also delete the provision rendering the program inoperative on July 1, 2019, and repealing the program on January 1, 2020, thereby extending the program indefinitely.

AB 2785 (Rubio D) Student services: lactation accommodations. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Last Amend: 4/5/2018 Status: 4/9/2018-Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 4/5/2018-A. APPR. Summary: Would require the California Community Colleges and the California State University to provide reasonable accommodations to a lactating student on their respective campuses to express breast milk, breast-feed an infant child, or address other needs related to breast-feeding. The bill would require that these reasonable accommodations include, but are not limited to, access to a private and secure room, other than a restroom, to express breast milk or breast-feed an infant child, permission to bring onto a school campus any equipment used to express breast milk, and access to a power source for that equipment.

AB 2804 (Waldron R) Substance use disorder treatment workforce expansion. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Status: 4/4/2018-Coauthors revised. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (April 3). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 4/3/2018-A. APPR. Page 5/14 Summary: Would state the Legislature’s long-range goals through the creation of one-year and five- year plans to expand the substance use disorder treatment workforce in California to aid in the treatment of alcohol and drug abuse. The bill would set out one-year goals for school districts, the California State University system, the University of California, the community college system, and the State Department of Health Care Services.

AB 2990 (Low D) Public postsecondary education: exemption from tuition and fees for qualifying survivors of deceased public safety and fire suppression personnel: notice. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Last Amend: 4/5/2018 Status: 4/9/2018-Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 4/5/2018-A. APPR. Summary: Current law prohibits the Board of Directors of the Hastings College of the Law, the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, the Trustees of the California State University, and, if they adopt an appropriate resolution, the Regents of the University of California, from collecting mandatory systemwide tuition and fees from any surviving spouse or surviving child of a deceased person who was a resident of the state and employed by or contracting with a public agency, whose principal duties consisted of active law enforcement service or active fire suppression and prevention, and who died as a result of his or her duties, as specified. This bill would require the Hastings College of Law, each campus of the California Community Colleges, and the California State University that has an Internet Web site, and, in the event that the regents adopt an appropriate resolution, each campus of the University of California that has an Internet Web site, to provide an online posting or notice of systemwide fee or tuition waivers available to students pursuant to the provision described above.

SB 940 (Beall D) Student financial aid: Cal Grant Program: foster youth. Introduced: 1/29/2018 Last Amend: 3/21/2018 Status: 4/9/2018-Set for hearing April 16. Location: 3/21/2018-S. APPR. Summary: The Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-Vasconcellos Cal Grant Program establishes the Cal Grant A and B Entitlement awards, the California Community College Transfer Entitlement awards, the Competitive Cal Grant A and B awards, the Cal Grant C awards, and the Cal Grant T awards under the administration of the Student Aid Commission, and establishes eligibility requirements for awards under these programs for participating students attending qualifying institutions. This bill would provide alternative deadlines for submitting a complete financial aid application for a student who is a current or former foster youth, who is attending a qualifying institution that offers baccalaureate degrees or is attending a California community college, and has not yet reached 26 years of age as of July 1 of the initial award year.

SB 967 (Berryhill R) Public postsecondary education: waiver of mandatory systemwide tuition and fees: current or former foster youth. Introduced: 1/31/2018 Last Amend: 3/8/2018 Status: 4/11/2018-Action From ED.: Do pass.To APPR.. Location: 4/11/2018-S. APPR. Summary: The provisions of the Donahoe Higher Education Act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, make them applicable. The act prohibits campuses of those segments from charging mandatory systemwide tuition or fees to specified students who apply for a waiver. This bill would, in addition, prohibit those campuses from charging mandatory systemwide tuition or fees to current or former foster youth, who meet certain requirements, for a total of the equivalent of attendance in a 4-year undergraduate program.

SB 972 (Portantino D) Pupil and student health: identification cards: suicide prevention hotline telephone number. Introduced: 2/1/2018 Last Amend: 3/5/2018 Status: 3/15/2018-Read second time. Ordered to third reading. Location: 3/15/2018-S. THIRD READING Summary: Would require a public school, including a charter school, or a private school that serves pupils in any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, that issues pupil identification cards to have printed on the back of the pupil identification cards the telephone number for a suicide prevention hotline or the Crisis Text Line, or both telephone numbers. The bill would require a public or private institution of higher education that issues student identification cards to have printed on the back of the student identification cards the telephone number for a suicide prevention hotline or the Crisis Text Line, or both telephone numbers.

SB 1009 (Wilk R) Community colleges: tutoring. Page 6/14 Introduced: 2/6/2018 Last Amend: 4/3/2018 Status: 4/3/2018-Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 4/3/2018-S. APPR. Summary: Under current law, community college districts throughout the state have established campuses where they provide instruction to students. Current law establishes a system through which state funds are apportioned to community college districts based on specified formulas. A provision of current law identifies the noncredit community college courses and classes that are eligible for state apportionment funding. This bill would provide that supervised tutoring for courses and classes in all subject areas that are either basic skills, degree applicable, or transfer level, irrespective of whether a student being tutored has been referred to tutoring by a faculty member or has self-initiated the tutoring, is eligible for state apportionment funding.

SB 1071 (Newman D) Public postsecondary education: Chancellor of the California Community Colleges: uniform policy to award course credit for prior military education, training, and service. Introduced: 2/12/2018 Last Amend: 3/22/2018 Status: 4/11/2018-Action From ED.: Do pass as amended.To APPR.. Location: 4/11/2018-S. APPR. Summary: Would require, commencing January 1, 2019, the office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, in collaboration with the Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges, to begin development of, and for each community college district to subsequently begin adoption and implementation of, a uniform policy to award military personnel and veterans with an official Joint Services Transcript, as specified. The bill would also require the office of the chancellor and the academic senate to review and adjust this uniform policy to align it with policies of other public postsecondary educational institutions.

SB 1224 (Glazer D) Statewide longitudinal education and workforce data system. Introduced: 2/15/2018 Last Amend: 3/19/2018 Status: 4/11/2018-Action From ED.: Do pass as amended.To APPR.. Location: 4/11/2018-S. APPR. Summary: Would establish a statewide longitudinal education and workforce data system to include data on California students from enrollment in kindergarten to their entry into the workforce. The bill would require the State Department of Education, the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, and the California State University, and would request the University of California, to set up a data collection system to track student data for these purposes, and would require the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to provide wage record and workforce program data for those students recently entering the workforce.

SB 1243 (Portantino D) Public postsecondary education: The California State Pathways in Technology Program. Introduced: 2/15/2018 Status: 4/11/2018-Action From ED.: Do pass as amended.To APPR.. Location: 4/11/2018-S. APPR. Summary: Would establish the California State Pathways in Technology (CA P-TECH) Program as a public-private partnership for purposes of preparing California students for high-skill jobs of the future in technology, manufacturing, health care, and finance. The bill would specify the core benefits of the program for participating students, including an opportunity to earn an Associate of Applied Science degree. The bill would express the intent of the Legislature that the CA P-TECH Program be funded through an appropriation in the annual Budget Act or in another statute.

SB 1348 (Pan D) Postsecondary education: allied health professional clinical programs: reporting. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Last Amend: 3/22/2018 Status: 4/9/2018-Set for hearing April 16. Location: 4/4/2018-S. APPR. Summary: Would require, beginning in 2019 and in each year thereafter, the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to include in the annual report, for each community college program that offers certificates or degrees related to allied health professionals that require clinical training, specified information relating to clinical training for those certificates or degrees. The bill would require, beginning in 2019 and in each year thereafter, each private postsecondary institution with a program offering those certificates or degrees to include that same information in the School Performance Fact Sheet.

SB 1354 (Galgiani D) Community colleges: California Apprenticeship Initiative (CAI) New and Innovative Grant Program. Page 7/14 Introduced: 2/16/2018 Status: 4/9/2018-Set for hearing April 16. Location: 4/4/2018-S. APPR. Summary: Current law establishes community college districts, administered by governing boards, throughout the state, and authorizes these districts to provide instruction to students at the community college campuses maintained by the districts. Upon appropriation by the Legislature for its purposes, this bill would establish a grant program, under the administration of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, to create new and innovative apprenticeship opportunities in priority and emerging industry sectors or areas in which apprenticeship training is not fully established or does not exist.

SB 1381 (Nielsen R) Public postsecondary education: Campus Free Expression Act. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Status: 4/6/2018-Set for hearing April 17. Location: 4/4/2018-S. JUD. Summary: Would enact the Campus Free Expression Act. The bill would declare that the outdoor areas of public postsecondary educational institutions are traditional public forums. The bill would provide that a public postsecondary educational institution may maintain and enforce reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions only when those restrictions are narrowly tailored in service of a significant institutional interest, employ clear, published, content-neutral, and viewpoint-neutral criteria, and provide for ample alternative means of expression.

SB 1388 (Anderson R) Postsecondary education: Forming Open and Robust University Minds Act. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Status: 4/4/2018-April 4 set for first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 2. Noes 3.) Reconsideration granted. Location: 4/4/2018-S. ED. Summary: Would establish the Forming Open and Robust University Minds (FORUM) Act, which would require the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges and the Trustees of the California State University to, and would encourage the Regents of the University of California to, develop and adopt a policy on free expression that contains specified statements.

SB 1406 (Hill D) Public postsecondary education: community college districts: baccalaureate degree pilot program. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Last Amend: 4/10/2018 Status: 4/10/2018-Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 4/10/2018-S. APPR. Summary: Current law requires a student participating in a baccalaureate degree pilot program to complete his or her degree by the end of the 2022–23 academic year. Current law makes the authorization to establish pilot baccalaureate degree programs inoperative on July 1, 2023, and repeals the authorization on January 1, 2024.Would require that a student participating in a baccalaureate degree pilot program commence his or her degree program by the beginning of the 2022–23 academic year. This bill would extend the inoperative and repeal dates for the authorization to establish pilot baccalaureate degree programs by 3 years.

SB 1471 (Hernandez D) Cal Grant Program: Competitive Cal Grant A and B awards. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Status: 4/9/2018-Set for hearing April 16. Location: 4/4/2018-S. APPR. Summary: Would increase the annual Competitive Cal Grant A and B award limit from 25,750 to 30,000.

To Be Heard in Policy Committee

AB 1786 (Cervantes D) Community colleges: academic credit for prior military experience. Introduced: 1/8/2018 Last Amend: 3/20/2018 Status: 4/4/2018-Coauthors revised. Location: 3/19/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Current law requires the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, using common course descriptors and pertinent recommendations of the American Council on Education, to determine, by July 1, 2015, for which courses credit should be awarded for prior military experience. This bill would instead require a statewide articulation officer at the Office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, who would be designated by the chancellor under the bill’s provisions Page 8/14 by March 31, 2019, to, using common course descriptors and pertinent recommendations of the American Council on Education, determine, by July 1, 2019, for which courses credit should be awarded for prior military experience.

AB 1978 (Chávez R) Cal Grant Program. Introduced: 1/31/2018 Status: 2/1/2018-From printer. May be heard in committee March 3. Location: 1/31/2018-A. PRINT Summary: Current law, the Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-Vasconcellos Cal Grant Program (Cal Grant Program), establishes the Cal Grant A and B Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Transfer Entitlement Awards, the Competitive Cal Grant A and B Awards, the Cal Grant C Awards, and the Cal Grant T Awards under the administration of the Student Aid Commission, and establishes eligibility requirements for awards under these programs for participating students attending qualifying institutions.This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to the provision that establishes the Cal Grant Program.

AB 2015 (Reyes D) Pupil instruction: economics: completion of applications for student financial aid. Introduced: 2/5/2018 Status: 2/12/2018-Referred to Com. on ED. Location: 2/12/2018-A. ED. Summary: Would require, commencing with the 2019–20 school year, the governing board of a school district or the governing body of a charter school that offers a course in economics that is limited to grade 12 pupils to include instruction, as part of that course, in the proper completion of student financial aid applications, including the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and the California Dream Act Application. The bill would require the State Department of Education, before the commencement of the 2019–20 school year, to provide guidance on how to implement these provisions, including, but not necessarily limited to, who may provide instruction.

AB 2027 (Fong R) Career technical education. Introduced: 2/5/2018 Status: 2/6/2018-From printer. May be heard in committee March 8. Location: 2/5/2018-A. PRINT Summary: Current law requires the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges to collect and maintain information related to career technical education and technical training within the California Community Colleges for inclusion within the integrated statewide information system. With respect to this integrated statewide information system, current law specifies that its data gathering and analysis capabilities include maintaining a comprehensive inventory of all career technical education and technical training programs that are maintained by the public schools. This bill would make various nonsubstantive changes in these provisions

AB 2070 (Reyes D) Postsecondary education: sexual assault and sexual violence prevention training: intimate partner and dating violence. Introduced: 2/7/2018 Last Amend: 4/9/2018 Status: 4/10/2018-Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. Location: 3/22/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Current law requires the governing boards of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions, in order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, to adopt, among other things, detailed and victim-centered policies and protocols, and outreach programs, regarding sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking involving a student that comport with best practices and current professional standards, covering specified topics. This bill would provide that the outreach programming required by this provision would include informing students about specified topics relating to intimate partner and dating violence, as specified.

AB 2170 (Choi R) Veterans education and training: California State Approving Agency for Veterans Education. Introduced: 2/12/2018 Status: 4/3/2018-In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. Location: 3/1/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Would require the California State Approving Agency for Veterans Education to provide for the certification of nanodegree for completing certain vocational education programs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics concentrations for veterans returning from military service on or after September 11, 2001, offered by California institutions of higher education as part of their participation in veterans education and training programs authorized by the federal Higher Education Act.

AB 2248 (McCarty D) Student financial aid: Cal Grant program. Page 9/14 Introduced: 2/13/2018 Last Amend: 3/23/2018 Status: 4/3/2018-In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. Location: 3/1/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Would, commencing with the start of the 2019–20 academic year, define “full time” for purposes of determining Cal Grant eligibility to mean 30 or more semester units or the equivalent, in an academic year for new awards and all subsequent renewals of that eligibility, and for all awards starting with the 2022–23 academic year. This bill would define “part time” to mean between 6 and below 30 semester units or the equivalent, for the academic year, in the above-described range of academic years, when at least 6 semester units, or the equivalent, are taken per semester. The definition of full time and part time for the enrollment status at a California community college would remain unchanged for the purposes of Cal Grant eligibility.

AB 2385 (Cunningham R) Public postsecondary education: textbooks. Introduced: 2/14/2018 Last Amend: 3/15/2018 Status: 3/19/2018-Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. Location: 3/15/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Current law urges textbook publishers to take specified actions aimed at informing students about, and reducing the amounts that students pay for, college textbooks. Among those actions, existing law urges textbook publishers to provide to faculty and departments considering textbook orders, and to post on their Internet Web sites, among other things, an explanation of how the newest edition is different from previous editions. This bill would instead urge textbook publishers to post in a prominent location on their Internet Web sites, among other things, a detailed description of how the newest edition differs from the previous edition, as specified.

AB 2478 (Voepel R) Personal income taxes: gross income: exclusion: student loan assistance. Introduced: 2/14/2018 Status: 3/5/2018-Referred to Com. on REV. & TAX. Location: 3/5/2018-A. REV. & TAX Summary: The Personal Income Tax Law excludes from the gross income of an employee amounts paid or incurred by an employer for educational assistance to the employee, as specified, up to $5,250 during a calendar year. This bill would exclude from the gross income of an employee amounts, not exceeding an aggregate amount of $5,250 per year, that are paid or incurred by an employer for the payment of principal or interest on a qualified education loan, as defined, incurred by the employee.

AB 2479 (Voepel R) Public postsecondary education: income share agreement: pilot program. Introduced: 2/14/2018 Last Amend: 3/8/2018 Status: 3/12/2018-Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. Location: 3/5/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Would request the University of California and the California State University to each select a university of their respective system to establish, commencing with the 2020–21 academic year, a pilot program to waive the tuition for participating students who enter into an income share agreement with the university. The bill would require the income share agreement to be subject to specified requirements, including, among others, that the agreement provide for monthly payments to be based on a specified percentage of the student’s annual income for 10 years after graduation.

AB 2480 (Voepel R) Income taxes: credit: Scholarship Tax Credit Program Act. Introduced: 2/14/2018 Last Amend: 3/19/2018 Status: 3/20/2018-Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX. Location: 3/5/2018-A. REV. & TAX Summary: The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law allow various credits against the taxes imposed by those laws. This bill, for each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2019, would allow a credit in an amount equal to the total contributions made to a scholarship granting organization that provides scholarships to eligible students to cover all or part of the tuition and fees at a qualified school, as defined, during the taxable year, not to exceed a specified amount. The bill would impose specified duties on the Franchise Tax Board, the State Department of Education, and the Employment Development Department in administering the credits.

AB 2575 (Santiago D) High school and community college dual enrollment: College and Career Access Pathways partnerships: private schools. Introduced: 2/15/2018 Last Amend: 4/5/2018 Status: 4/9/2018-Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. Location: 3/8/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Page 10/14 Summary: Current law authorizes the governing board of a community college district to enter into a College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP) partnership with the governing board of a school district with the goal of developing seamless pathways from high school to community college for career technical education or preparation for transfer, improving high school graduation rates, or helping high school pupils achieve college and career readiness. This bill would authorize the governing body of a private school, including a parochial school, to enter into a CCAP partnership agreement with the governing board of a community college district pursuant to these provisions.

AB 2621 (Medina D) Postsecondary education: California Community Colleges. Introduced: 2/15/2018 Last Amend: 4/3/2018 Status: 4/4/2018-Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. Location: 4/2/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Current law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Current law establishes community college districts throughout the state, and authorizes them to provide instruction at the campuses they operate.This bill would require the Legislative Analyst’s Office to conduct a study on the feasibility of creating an exclusively online community college and to report its findings to the Legislature on or before July 1, 2019.

AB 2716 (Nazarian D) Postsecondary education: Every Kid Counts Act. Introduced: 2/15/2018 Status: 2/16/2018-From printer. May be heard in committee March 18. Location: 2/15/2018-A. PRINT Summary: Current law establishes the Every Kid Counts (EKC) Act, which requires the Scholarshare Investment Board to implement and administer a college savings program that incentivizes families to participate in a qualified tuition program established under the Golden State Scholarshare Trust Act or other college savings programs.This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to those provisions.

AB 2747 (Holden D) Student Athletes Bill of Rights: student athlete liaisons: collegiate athlete mandated reporters. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Last Amend: 4/9/2018 Status: 4/10/2018-Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. Location: 3/22/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Would add to the Student Athlete Bill of Rights provisions declaring that college athletes have the right to self-organization and requiring institutions of higher education, as defined, to provide student athletes with designated information. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

AB 2767 (Medina D) California Community Colleges: funding formula: study. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Last Amend: 4/3/2018 Status: 4/4/2018-Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. Location: 4/2/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Current law authorizes the establishment of community college districts under the administration of community college governing boards, and authorizes these districts to provide instruction at community college campuses throughout the state. Current law requires the board of governors to develop criteria and standards, in accordance with specified statewide minimum requirements, for the purposes of making the annual budget request for the California Community Colleges to the Governor and the Legislature, and allocating state general apportionment revenues.This bill would require the Legislative Analyst’s Office to conduct a study of the funding formula used to allocate state apportionments by the California Community Colleges for the 2017–18 fiscal year.

AB 2776 (Salas D) Workforce development: workforce diploma program: California Community Colleges. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Last Amend: 3/23/2018 Status: 4/2/2018-Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. Location: 3/15/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Would establish a workforce diploma program under the administration of the California Community Colleges. The program would consist of components that would include career diplomas, standard diplomas, pay-for-performance programs, and the use of approved providers who provide designated services to increase the employability of program participants. The bill would provide for an online component of the workforce diploma program. The bill would express the intent of the Legislature to provide $5,000,000 of funding, as specified, to the Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges through the annual Budget Act or another statute, to fund a 2-year pilot Page 11/14 workforce diploma program.

AB 2871 (Garcia, Eduardo D) Public schools: College and Career Access Pathways partnerships. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Last Amend: 4/2/2018 Status: 4/3/2018-Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. Location: 3/8/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Would establish the Rural Dual Enrollment Teacher Qualifications Pilot Program. Commencing with the 2019–20 school year, the bill would authorize a high school district within Imperial County to allow a high school teacher of that district to teach a college course on the high school campus pursuant to a College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP) partnership if the teacher has met specified requirements. The bill would require any course taught by a qualified high school teacher under the bill to be evaluated and approved by the community college, and would only allow pupils enrolled through a CCAP partnership to enroll in these courses.

AB 2891 (Holden D) High school and community college dual enrollment: College and Career Access Pathways partnerships: charter schools. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Last Amend: 3/19/2018 Status: 3/20/2018-Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. Location: 3/8/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Would authorize the governing body of a charter school to enter into a CCAP partnership agreement with the governing board of a community college district pursuant to these provisions.

AB 2894 (Gloria D) Postsecondary education: students called to active military duty during an academic term. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Last Amend: 3/23/2018 Status: 4/2/2018-Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. Location: 3/22/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Current law requires public and private postsecondary educational institutions to refund 100% of the tuition and fees paid by a student to the institution for the academic term in which the student was required to report for military service. This bill would provide that, when a student, as defined, is called to active military duty during an academic term, the student may: choose to withdraw from the institution, retroactive to the beginning of the academic term; if at least 75% of the term has been completed, choose to request that the faculty member assign a grade for the course based on the work the student has completed, as specified; or, if the faculty member assigns a grade of Incomplete for the student’s coursework, the student has a minimum of 2 weeks after returning to the institution to complete the course requirements.

AB 2993 (Baker R) Community colleges: Community College Completion Grant Program. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Status: 2/17/2018-From printer. May be heard in committee March 19. Location: 2/16/2018-A. PRINT Summary: Current law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. The board of governors appoints a chief executive officer known as the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges. This bill would change the deadline for submission of that report to April 15, 2019. This bill contains other current laws.

AB 3060 (Bonta D) Income and corporation taxes: deductions: educational assistance. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Last Amend: 3/22/2018 Status: 4/2/2018-Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX. Location: 3/22/2018-A. REV. & TAX Summary: Would allow a deduction under the Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law for amounts paid or incurred by an employer during the taxable year for the educational assistance of full-time employees pursuant to an educational assistance program.This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.

AB 3071 (Nazarian D) Community colleges: community service classes. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Status: 2/17/2018-From printer. May be heard in committee March 19. Location: 2/16/2018-A. PRINT Summary: Current law establishes community college districts throughout the state, and authorizes them to provide instruction at the campuses they operate. Current law authorizes the governing board of any community college district to establish and maintain, in accordance with specified criteria, Page 12/14 community service classes in civic, vocational, literacy, health, homemaking, technical, and general education, including, but not limited to, classes in the fields of visual and performing arts, handicraft, science, literature, nature study, nature contacting, aquatic sports, and athletics. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes in this provision.

AB 3089 (Thurmond D) Student financial aid: Chafee grant awards. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Last Amend: 4/2/2018 Status: 4/3/2018-Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. Location: 3/19/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Commencing with the 2019–20 award year, this bill would provide that new Chafee grant awards may be available to students as long as they are under the age of 28 by December 31 of the award year. The bill would appropriate an additional $250,000 from the General Fund annually to expand the state’s allocation to the Chafee Educational and Training Vouchers program. The bill would require the commission to annually report to the Legislature specified information regarding Chafee grant awards for the preceding award year.

AB 3101 (Carrillo D) Community colleges. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Status: 3/12/2018-Referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. Location: 3/12/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Would require the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, on or before July 31, 2019, to revise the CCCApply application and enrollment process so that only data that is required by the federal government, or that is otherwise necessary, as determined by the board, is collected during the process. The bill would require the board, to the extent that data can be collected from the student at a later time, to delay the collection of that data until after the student is enrolled.

AB 3153 (Levine D) Student financial aid: Cal Grants: summer term students. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Last Amend: 3/23/2018 Status: 4/2/2018-Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. Location: 3/22/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Would require that a student’s attendance in the equivalent of 2 summer sessions or terms of full-time attendance be included in the 4 years of full-time attendance in an undergraduate program for which a student may receive a Cal Grant Program award.

AB 3186 (Medina D) Public postsecondary education: University of California: California Community Colleges: competitive bidding: best value. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Status: 4/3/2018-In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. Location: 3/12/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Current law requires the governing board of any community college district to let specified contracts involving an expenditure of more than $50,000 to the lowest responsible bidder meeting certain specifications, or else reject all bids. Existing law, until January 1, 2019, provides that the bid evaluation and selection for these contracts may be determined by the best value for the University of California or the community college district, as specified. This bill would delete the January 1, 2019, repeal date applicable to best value procurement authority, thereby extending operation of these provisions indefinitely and would delete the references to the reports described above regarding use of best value procurement by the University of California and community college districts.

AB 3255 (Committee on Higher Education) Postsecondary education: omnibus bill. Introduced: 3/15/2018 Status: 3/22/2018-Referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. Location: 3/22/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Current law requires the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to maintain for public record certain enumerated information and authorizes the commission to disclose that information. Current law generally prohibits the disclosure by the commission of information absent an order from a court of competent jurisdiction. This bill would, for purposes of the ongoing evaluation of teacher preparation programs at the California State University, authorize the commission to provide to the Office of the Chancellor of the California State University or the State Department of Education any data it collects to the extent that the disclosure is permitted by state and federal privacy laws.

SB 968 (Pan D) Postsecondary education: mental health counselors. Introduced: 1/31/2018 Last Amend: 3/12/2018 Status: 4/11/2018-Set for hearing April 25. Location: 2/8/2018-S. ED. Page 13/14 Summary: Would require the Trustees of the California State University, and the governing board of each community college district, and request the Regents of the University of California, to have one full-time equivalent mental health counselor per 1,000 students enrolled at each of their respective campuses to the fullest extent consistent with state and federal law. The bill would define mental health counselor for purposes of this provision. The bill would require those institutions, on or before January 1, 2020, and every 3 years thereafter, to report to the Legislature how funding was spent and the number of mental health counselors employed on each of its campuses, as specified.

SB 1218 (Gaines R) Personal income taxes: deduction: 529 college savings plans: contributions. Introduced: 2/15/2018 Status: 3/1/2018-Referred to Com. on GOV. & F. Location: 3/1/2018-S. GOV. & F. Summary: For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2018, would allow as a deduction under that law the lesser of (1) the amount contributed by a qualified taxpayer, as defined, to a qualified tuition program, as specified, or (2) $20,000, as indexed for inflation. This bill contains other related provisions.

SB 1378 (Nguyen R) Postsecondary education: segments. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Status: 3/8/2018-Referred to Com. on RLS. Location: 2/16/2018-S. RLS. Summary: Would make nonsubstantive changes in a provision that, for purposes of the Donahoe Higher Education Act, designates the segments of public postsecondary education as the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California, as specified, and defines independent institutions of higher education for these purposes.

SB 1432 (Fuller R) School districts and community college districts: election procedures. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Status: 3/8/2018-Referred to Com. on RLS. Location: 2/16/2018-S. RLS. Summary: Current law prescribes the procedures for the election of governing board members in a school district or community college district. Current law requires that any election held for the purpose of electing governing board members of any school district or community college district be held and conducted in accordance with uniform procedures, as provided.This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to the latter provision.

SB 1470 (Stern D) Jobs for California Graduates Program. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Status: 4/4/2018-April 11 hearing postponed by committee. Location: 3/8/2018-S. L. & I.R. Summary: Current law establishes the Jobs for California Graduates Program for the purpose of creating a regional system of local programs to help California’s at-risk youth complete their secondary education and transition into the workforce or enroll in postsecondary education. As part of this program, current law authorizes the Director of Employment Development to make grants to applicants for the purposes of carrying out Jobs for California Graduates local programs in the central valley region and requires these local programs to include certain elements. This bill would additionally require local programs to consult with local workforce development boards on efforts where they can cooperate.

SB 1472 (Hernandez D) Student financial aid: Competitive Cal Grant A and B awards. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Status: 3/8/2018-Referred to Com. on RLS. Location: 2/16/2018-S. RLS. Summary: Would update a cross reference to the total number of Competitive Cal Grant A and B awards granted annually. Total Measures: 74 Total Tracking Forms: 74

Page 14/14 Los Angeles Community College District Immigration

AB 1862 (Santiago D) Immigration services: grants. Introduced: 1/11/2018 Status: 4/11/2018-From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (April 10). Location: 4/11/2018-A. APPR. Summary: The TPS program authorizes eligible nationals from TPS designated foreign countries to remain in the United States on a temporary and renewable basis. This bill would appropriate $10,000,000 from the General Fund to the department for the 2017–18 fiscal year for immigration services funding to be available for payment to existing entities under contract pursuant to specified provisions as described for work on behalf of clients who are current or former recipients of federal Temporary Protected Status. Vote Events: 04/10/2018 ASM. HUM. S. (Y:6 N:0 A:1) (P) 03/20/2018 ASM. JUD. (Y:8 N:1 A:1) (P)

AB 1895 (Calderon D) California DREAM Loan Program: repayment, deferment, and forbearance. Introduced: 1/18/2018 Status: 3/19/2018-Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 3/15/2018-A. APPR. Summary: The California DREAM Loan Program provides that a student attending a participating campus of the University of California or California State University may receive a loan, referred to as a DREAM loan, through the program if the student satisfies specified requirements, including a requirement that the student be exempt from paying nonresident tuition or meet equivalent requirements adopted by the Regents of the University of California. This bill would require a participating campus, on or before January 1, 2020, to adopt procedures allowing a borrower to select an income-based repayment plan for the repayment of a DREAM loan, as specified. Vote Events: 03/13/2018 ASM. HIGHER ED. (Y:11 N:0 A:2) (P)

AB 2210 (McCarty D) Public postsecondary education: holders of certain special immigrant visas. Introduced: 2/12/2018 Status: 4/4/2018-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (April 3). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 4/3/2018-A. APPR. Summary: Current law exempts students who have been granted special immigrant visas pursuant to a specified federal statute, or are refugees admitted to the United States under a specified federal statute, and who, upon entering the United States, settled in California, from paying nonresident tuition at the California Community Colleges. Current law authorizes a community college district to report a student, who is exempt from nonresident tuition under this provision and who is enrolled as a student of that district, as a full-time equivalent student for apportionment purposes. This bill would exempt students granted special immigrant visas pursuant to an additional federal statute from paying nonresident tuition at the California Community Colleges. Vote Events: 04/03/2018 ASM. HIGHER ED. (Y:13 N:0 A:0) (P)

AB 2477 (Rubio D) Student support services: Dream Resource Liaisons. Introduced: 2/14/2018 Status: 4/4/2018-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 1.) (April 3). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 4/3/2018-A. APPR. Summary: Would, commencing with the 2019–20 academic year, require the California Community Page 1/2 Colleges and the California State University, and request the University of California, to designate a Dream Resource Liaison on each of their respective campuses, as specified, to assist students meeting specified requirements, including undocumented students, by streamlining access to all available financial aid and academic opportunities for those students. By requiring community colleges to designate a Dream Resource Liaison, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Vote Events: 04/03/2018 ASM. HIGHER ED. (Y:11 N:1 A:1) (P)

AB 2931 (Patterson R) Law enforcement: cooperation with immigration officials. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Status: 4/10/2018-In committee: Set, first hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted. Location: 4/10/2018-A. PUB. S. Summary: Current law authorizes a local law enforcement agency to cooperate with federal immigration authorities regarding an individual under certain circumstances, including if the individual has been previously convicted of certain crimes or if the individual is arrested and brought before a magistrate on a charge involving a serious or violent felony, as defined, or a felony that is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, and a magistrate makes a specified finding of probable cause to a complaint based on that charge. This bill would add additional qualifying convictions that would authorize local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration authorities regarding the individual. Vote Events: 04/10/2018 ASM. PUB. S. (Y:7 N:0 A:0) (P) 04/10/2018 ASM. PUB. S. (Y:2 N:5 A:0) (F)

AB 3008 (Burke D) Public postsecondary education: exemption from paying nonresident tuition. Introduced: 2/16/2018 Status: 4/10/2018-Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. Location: 3/12/2018-A. HIGHER ED. Summary: Current law exempts a student, other than a nonimmigrant alien, as defined, from nonresident tuition at the California State University and the California Community Colleges if the student has a total of 3 or more years of attendance, or attainment of equivalent credits earned while in California, at California high schools, California adult schools, campuses of the California Community Colleges, or a combination of those schools, as specified, or if the student completes 3 or more years of full-time high school coursework, and a total of 3 or more years of attendance in California elementary schools, California secondary schools, or a combination of California elementary and secondary schools. Notwithstanding the exclusion of nonimmigrant aliens from the exemption from paying nonresident tuition, the bill would provide that any student enrolled at the California State University or the California Community Colleges shall remain eligible for the exemption from nonresident tuition if the nonimmigrant alien met the requirements for the exemption from nonresident tuition as a dependent of an individual with an E-2 nonimmigrant classification as long as the student remains continuously enrolled, irrespective of any change in the student’s visa or immigration status.

SB 1219 (Gaines R) Law enforcement: sharing data. Introduced: 2/15/2018 Status: 4/3/2018-Set for hearing April 17. Location: 3/1/2018-S. PUB. S. Summary: The California Values Act (act), prohibits, subject to exceptions, state and local law enforcement agencies, including school police and security departments, from using money or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, as specified, and, subject to exceptions, proscribes other activities or conduct in connection with immigration enforcement by law enforcement agencies. This bill would repeal those provisions. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. Total Measures: 8 Total Tracking Forms: 8

Page 2/2